Extract project template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'extract' without specifying whether the tool modifies the existing project, what output it produces (e.g., a new file or console output), or any prerequisites like Quartus installation. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Extract reusable project defaults...') and is immediately understandable.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format (e.g., file path, data structure), default values for required parameters, or error conditions. The tool's behavior is only partially specified.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description lists the components being extracted (defaults, sources, pins, simulation settings), which partially maps to the boolean parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and identifies the resource as 'reusable project defaults, source assignments, simulation settings, and pin assignments from an existing Quartus .qpf/.qsf project.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like quartus_create_project (creation) and quartus_inspect_project (inspection).

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of extracting templates is implied, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool is better for other tasks.

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