vivado_run_synthesis

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

The description only says 'launch and wait', omitting important behavioral details such as failure modes, side effects, locking, or timeout behavior. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure.

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 very concise but at the expense of missing critical information. It could be slightly longer to include parameter roles or behavioral notes without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It ignores the existence of an output schema and fails to explain parameter semantics or usage 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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema provides default values and types but no further context. Parameters like 'jobs' and 'timeout_seconds' are left completely unexplained.

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 ('launch and wait') and the resource ('Vivado synthesis run'), which is a well-defined concept in the Vivado context. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vivado_run_implementation and vivado_generate_bitstream.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., open project) or situations where it should not be used.

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