PDS 工程信息解析

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does state the main action (parsing .pds) and an unexpected behavioral detail (bracket balance check). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is strictly read-only, what happens on invalid or missing project files, or how errors surface.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and then lists return payloads in order. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description reasonably enumerates all returned information categories. It could be more explicit about the structure or representation of the bracket-balance result and error behavior, but the essential call context is present.

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%, and the only parameter, pdsPath, is already described as the absolute path of the .pds project file. The description reinforces that this is a project file path but adds no new format, encoding, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('解析' / parse) and resource ('.pds' project file) and enumerates exact outputs: target device, top-level source, source list, constraints, and bracket balance check. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like fpga_pds_scan or fpga_pds_reports, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool versus sibling PDS tools such as fpga_pds_scan, fpga_pds_run, or fpga_pds_compile. An agent must infer from the name and return fields that this is an inspection/parse step, with no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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