PDS 报告解析

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavior that PDS is not executed, which is valuable for a report-parsing tool. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether it only reads files, requires existing build outputs, or has side effects like writing extracted artifacts.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys scope and the key exclusion. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is enough for basic selection and understanding of purpose, especially with the non-execution caveat. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the return format and does not clarify how the five optional parameters should be combined to produce a parse, leaving the agent with some ambiguity about invocation expectations.

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%, with all five parameters already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb and resource set: 解析 (parse) PDS build logs, timing, resource, and bitstream output. It also adds an explicit negative boundary, '不运行 PDS', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like fpga_pds_run.

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 implies the tool should be used to inspect PDS outputs rather than to launch builds, and explicitly warns it does not run PDS. However, it does not name alternatives or state conditions like 'use this when you already have build artifacts and need parsed reports.' The usage context is clear but not fully developed.

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