ILA: 读片上 ADC 寄存器(温度/电压等)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful operational context: execution goes through the GUI Tcl Console via a session-1 UIAutomation driver, and the cable is opened by the GUI. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what error conditions look like, or what happens when the GUI/cable is not ready.

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?

Two compact sentences with no redundancy. The core function and command example are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the underlying mechanism and the GUI dependency. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description covers what it does, the underlying mechanism, and the GUI cable dependency. But with no output schema, the return is only vaguely signaled ('回读并解析数值'), and prerequisites and failure behavior are left implicit, leaving a real but small 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 description coverage is 100%: host, user, address, and timeoutSec all have individual descriptions including format examples and defaults. The description only adds marginal value by showing how address maps into the underlying command; it contributes no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-object pair: read and parse on-chip ADC registers (e.g., die temperature), and names the exact underlying Tcl command it wraps (`dbg_adc_read_reg -address <addr>`). It also positions itself as a convenience wrapper over fpga_ila_console, which helps distinguish it from the raw console and capture tools in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied ('便捷封装' convenience wrapper for reading ADC registers), and the relationship to fpga_ila_console is stated at the implementation level. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions such as 'the GUI must already have the cable open before calling this.'

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