ILA GUI fallback: 抓波→导出→交互波形查看器

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers useful context: this is a non-default fallback, it depends on a completed fpga_ila_open, and it performs a concrete multi-step workflow. It does not detail potential side effects, permissions, or completion/return behavior, so I do not score it a 5.

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 dense sentences front-load the critical classification as a GUI fallback, state the preferred alternative, give the exact usage condition, and describe the workflow. No sentence is wasted.

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 10 optional parameters, nested trigger semantics, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus rich schema is mostly sufficient: an agent knows when to use it, what it does, and what it produces. It could be stronger on success/return semantics and explicit side effects, but it is not under-specified.

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 input schema already documents all 10 parameters and the trigger object with an example. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: it is the GUI fallback capture path that runs the dbg_fla_* sequence, exports VCD, parses groups, and generates an interactive waveform viewer. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the local default fpga_jtag_capture, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: only in remote GUI scenarios or when bare-metal capture does not support the needed function. It also names the preferred alternative for ordinary local FLA, fpga_jtag_capture, and states the prerequisite that fpga_ila_open must already have completed.

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