ILA: 把 .fic 注册到 .pds(Fabric-Inserter widget)

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the .pds file, automatically backs up the original with `.bak_<ts>`, and supports both PDS 2025.2 XML and older sexpr forms. This is substantial useful behavior beyond a bare 'register fic' statement.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence: it states the action, the effect on the next run, the backup behavior, and format compatibility. No filler or redundant wording appears.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the input relationship, the target widget, the downstream consequence, the safety backup, and supported file formats. An agent has enough to call it 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?

The schema already covers both parameters fully with descriptions of absolute paths and the automatic relative-path conversion for ficPath. The description reinforces the .fic/.pds relationship but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action: writing an already-generated .fic file into the .pds project's Fabric-Inserter widget, and even names the exact widget markers (`<action name='fic'>`/`wgt_my_fic_src`). It clearly differs from sibling tools like fpga_ila_generate_fic by emphasizing that the .fic is already generated.

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 workflow context: use it after generating a .fic and before running `fpga_pds_run gen_bit_stream`, so the inserter path is taken. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the intended timing is well implied.

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