ILA GUI fallback: 一键烧录→调试器→抓波

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it flags the flow as dangerous ("危险动作"), mandates confirm:true before cable access/flash/capture, names the destructive stages (释放 cable, 烧录), and promises stage-by-stage reporting. It stops short of describing side effects (e.g., what cable release does to other JTAG users) and failure/rollback behavior, so not 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?

The description packs classification, usage condition, safety gate, the full stage pipeline, reporting behavior, and an exclusion into a few dense clauses, with the most decision-relevant facts (fallback status, alternatives) front-loaded. It is slightly run-on rather than enumerated, but 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 high-complexity composite tool (20 params, nested objects, destructive multi-stage flow, no annotations and no output schema), the description covers the orchestration stages, the confirm gate, and periodic reporting. Remaining gaps are failure/rollback semantics and an explicit statement of final outputs (only implied via outDir's viewer/json/vcd), but the schema carries the parameter load effectively.

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% and the schema entries are already rich (capture explains n/w window modes, confirm documents the cable/flash/capture gating, expectIdcode states verification-before-flash). The description adds only marginal reinforcement of the confirm requirement and the remote-desktop host condition, so the baseline 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 identifies the tool as a GUI-fallback flow for ILA capture and enumerates its pipeline (push→release cable→scan+IDCODE→flash→fpga_ila_open→fpga_ila_capture→teardown), so the resource and flow are specific. It separates itself from the bare-metal fpga_jtag_flash→fpga_jtag_capture path by naming that sibling, but the purpose is defined largely by exclusion ("仅当...不支持...或必须...时采用") rather than by a crisp primary action statement, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives explicit adoption conditions (bare-metal fpga_jtag_flash→fpga_jtag_capture lacking target support, or remote interactive desktop required), names the alternative tools verbatim, and adds a clear exclusion ("普通本地 FLA 抓波不要优先走本流程"). This is textbook when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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