vivado_add_sources

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like whether files are merged or overwritten, permission requirements, or what happens on error. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse for the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations). A slightly longer description with structured details would be more helpful.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, 5 parameters, and an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or any side effects on the project. The description provides only the bare minimum of context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'RTL/source and constraint files', which loosely maps to the sources and constraints parameters, but offers no detail on session_ref (required), top, or timeout_seconds. The description fails to add meaningful context beyond the parameter titles.

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 clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource type ('RTL/source and constraint files'), and the target ('current Vivado project'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vivado_create_project and vivado_open_project.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vivado_run_tcl for custom operations), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., an existing active session), and no exclusion criteria provided.

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