PDS JTAG 扫链

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states this is a read-only action, which is important safety information, and it discloses the side-effecting mechanism of starting/reusing cdt_js. It does not describe process cleanup or authentication, but the read-only and operational behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the read-only nature is stated early, and the local/remote distinction is summarized efficiently.

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 read-only tool with 7 optional parameters, the schema fully explains the parameters and the description covers operational context, including default behavior and remote execution. There is no output schema, but the phrase '读取 IDCODE' makes the expected return content clear. Missing details like error/retry behavior are partially covered by parameter descriptions.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the host parameter's local/remote semantics and the execution-device layer concept, but it does not add significant meaning for the other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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: start/reuse cdt_js and use cdt_cfg to scan the JTAG chain and read IDCODEs. It also states the scope (local vs remote via host). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling fpga_jtag_scan, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides clear usage context: default is local, and passing host executes on a remote device through the execution-device layer. However, it gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over a sibling like fpga_jtag_scan, and it does not mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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