生成 SPI 链式文件 (cfg_gen_chain_file)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses three important behavioral traits: offline operation, no hardware connection, and optional bin genertion with byte/bit reversal that are fully parameterized. It does not mention output-file overwrite behavior or timeouts, but for a file-genertion tool this is reasonably sufficient and non-misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence is front-loaded with the core operation and immediately adds the critical offline/no-device distinction. Each phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a relatively simple file-genertion tool, the description combined with a fully documented schema covers the essential context: purpose, offline behavior, no hardware, and optional bin/reversal modes. It does not explicitly state that files are written to disk, but this is heavily implied by '生成文件' and the outfile parameter, and no output schema is expected for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter (infile, outfile, pdsVersion, timeoutSec, createBinFile, reverseBitInAByte, reverseByteInAWord) already has a description. The tool description only re-stares the existence of bin and reversal options without adding new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb '合成' (combine) with concrete resources (.sbit files) and output (SPI chain file). The explicit '不连器件' (does not connect to device) distinguishes it from hardware-flashing siblings like fpga_flash_spi and fpga_jtag_gen_svf. The main purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides clear context: use this when you need to generate an SPI chain file offline from two or more .sbit files without a connected device. This gives an agent a solid selection rule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just shy of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.