生成多启动数据流 (cfg_gen_multi_file)

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not connect to the device, performs an offline merge, and does not hard-code offsets, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not discuss error handling or file overwrites, but the critical no-device behavior is explicit.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes signal: offline operation, multi-image merging, type selection, and caller responsibility. The core action is front-loaded before constraints.

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?

Given full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: offline, no device, caller-controlled inputs, and type selection. It does not describe return values or exact output artifacts, but the schema's outfile, goldenOutFile, and appliedOutFile fields fill most of that gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that infile and sbitStartAddress are caller-provided and that type selects the stream type, but this mostly overlaps with existing schema descriptions. It adds only the '偏移不写死' nuance beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: offline synthesis of two or more .sbit files into a multi-boot/upgrade data stream. It distinguishes itself from hardware-connected sibling tools by explicitly saying '不连器件' and clarifies the multi-boot/upgrade scope.

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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for offline generation without a connected device, and that the caller must supply infile and sbitStartAddress while type selects the stream kind. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as fpga_gen_chain_file.

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