PDS Headless 构建 (gen_bit_stream 预设)

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the full-pipeline execution, the .sbit output, compact summary format, detail/cache handling, and the effsoftecrypt self-check. It defers remaining behavior to fpga_pds_run, which is an acceptable pattern only if that sibling is equally well documented; side effects like build-directory handling are left to the schema.

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 sentences with the identity statement front-loaded before behavioral details; no filler. The parenthetical enumeration is dense, but each item (compact summary, detail/cache, effsoftecrypt self-check) 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 an 8-parameter build wrapper with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical questions: tool identity, preset target, expected artifact, and inherited behaviors. Its main gap is relying on fpga_pds_run's description for the rest — an agent without access to that sibling would miss return-value and artifact-location details.

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 real semantic value: it frames runTarget as deliberately locked to a preset rather than merely defaulted, and links that parameter to the .sbit outcome. This tells an agent that overriding runTarget would defeat the tool's purpose — meaning beyond the schema's plain default-value note.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it is the bitstream-output preset of fpga_pds_run that runs the full PDS flow and produces a .sbit artifact. It distinguishes itself from its parent sibling immediately by pinning the one differing aspect (default runTarget=gen_bit_stream).

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?

Names fpga_pds_run as the parent and frames this tool as the preset that fixes runTarget=gen_bit_stream, so an agent can infer when to pick it over fpga_pds_run (want the default bitstream flow) and when not to (need a different run target). The guidance is clear but implicit; it never spells out an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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