PDS Headless 运行 (任意 -run 目标)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers the important behaviors: the exact command shape, the instruction not to trust exit codes, parsing of the E:/bitstream success line plus effsoftecrypt self-check, default compact summary, detail fallback, and input-hash caching. This gives an agent a reliable model of what happens when invoked.

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 dense but every clause contributes: command, target list, naming caveat, success detection, output default, and caching. It is front-loaded with the core invocation and wastes no words.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, but the description explains success detection and the summary/full return granularity, so an agent knows what to expect. It could be more explicit about the shape of the compact summary and side effects like output-dir backup, but the core calling context is covered.

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 value by enumerating the valid runTarget values and explicitly correcting the dev_map/pnr naming (not device_map/place_route). It also clarifies the cache and detail behaviors, going beyond the plain schema entries.

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 any flow stage via pds_shell.exe -project ... -run ...') and enumerates the accepted targets, making the resource and scope explicit. The title and target list distinguish it from sibling compile/report/batch tools even without naming them.

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?

It provides clear context by stating that any -run target can be invoked and specifically notes that early targets such as dev_map can produce resource utilization without running P&R. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, 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.