生成 SPI Flash 镜像 (.sfc)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the offline/no-hardware nature, the lack of built-in board defaults, and the parameterized flash model/read opcode/start address. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return details, but those are minor for a file-generation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loades the core transformation, and each sentence adds distinct value: offline/no-hardware context and multi-boot routing. There is no tautology or redundant detail.

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?

Combined with a fully documented schema, the description supplies the key operational context an agent needs: it is an offline generation step, not a hardware-bound operation, and multi-boot is handled elsewhere. It could add a note about prerequisites such as PDS environment, but the schema's optional pdsVersion and the sibling tool set already hint at that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful umbrella statement that flash model, read opcode, and start address are fully parameterized, but it does not replace the schema-level parameter documentation.

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 operation: offline conversion of .sbit to .sfc via cfg_gen_sfc, which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also differentiates it from siblings by noting multi-boot should use fpga_gen_multi_file.

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?

It explicitly sets the usage context: offline, no device, no cable, no confirm. It also provides a concrete alternative for multi-boot, so an agent can route correctly without guessing.

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