PDS 独立工程变体批量运行（最多 2-way）

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and covers important traits: pre-launch safety validation, the 2-way concurrency cap with a memory rationale, and the failure semantics (top-level ok=false while preserving per-variant results). It is transparent, though it does not enumerate all side effects (e.g., backup behavior) that the schema mentions in parameter descriptions.

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 compact and front-loaded: action first, then safety gates, concurrency limit, and failure behavior. Every sentence carries distinct high-value information with no filler.

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 batch tool with rich schema but no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisites, validation rules, concurrency constraints, and result/failure semantics. That is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining valid variant structure: pdsPath directories must be unique and non-nested, shared prj_tasks cause rejection, and P&R memory intensity motivates maxParallel=2. These invariants help the agent construct valid inputs.

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 action: run multiple prepared independent PDS project clones in parallel and summarize timing/errors/artifacts per variant. This clearly distinguishes it from single-run siblings like fpga_pds_run and fpga_pds_compile via the batch/multiple-clone scope.

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 usage context: use when there are multiple independent, pre-prepared PDS clones, and it specifies preconditions such as unique non-nested pdsPath directories and no shared prj_tasks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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