ILA: 仪表化构建(生成 .fic→注册→gen_bit_stream)→ sbit + 构建报告网页

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well. It reveals fail-fast behavior for ambiguous, unverified, or optimized signals, states that validation happens before modifying the project, and exposes side effects by saying the sbit is handed to fpga_jtag_flash and the fic to fpga_jtag_capture by default. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a realistic model of what the tool will do.

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 dense but efficient: every sentence adds substantive information about pipeline, validation behavior, outputs, or fallback. The core pipeline is front-loaded in the first sentence. A small amount of structure, such as bullet points or clearer separation between pipeline, error behavior, and defaults, would improve readability, but there is no fluff.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: pipeline steps, outputs, side effects, default downstream actions, and error-handling posture. The input schema fully covers parameter details. The main gap is that the exact structure of the returned report and sbit/fic result is not described, and explicit differentiation from fpga_ila_flow is only implicit.

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 meaningful parameter-related context beyond the schema, especially for the signals parameter: multi-instance same-name ambiguity returns 'ambiguous', and unverified/optimized signals cause fail-fast before the project is modified. This helps the agent construct valid inputs, though not every parameter receives additional explanation.

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 clearly states the core function: combining ILA instrumented build into one self-correcting call, with a concrete pipeline (bypass synthesis → ins_list_nets parsing → FIC validation → generate/register .fic → gen_bit_stream). It also names concrete outputs (sbit+fic+报告), making the tool's purpose distinct from the individual-step sibling tools like fpga_ila_generate_fic and fpga_ila_list_nets.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: it is the consolidated local build path, and GUI flow is explicitly positioned as only a remote/special fallback. It also mentions default chaining to fpga_jtag_flash and fpga_jtag_capture, which helps the agent understand the tool's role in the broader flow. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as fpga_ila_flow as the thing to use instead in other scenarios.

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