List JTAG hardware

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists hardware using quartus_pgm and jtagconfig, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (unlikely), required permissions, or behavior with no JTAG hardware connected. The transparency is adequate for a simple list but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and implementation details with zero wasted words. It is maximally concise while providing necessary information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not describe the return value format or structure. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., Quartus installation) and error conditions (e.g., no JTAG hardware). For a tool that produces output, this information is critical for agent decision-making.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no information about parameters, leaving timeoutSeconds undocumented. Since coverage is below 80%, the description fails to compensate, resulting in poor parameter understanding.

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 the verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'available Quartus programming hardware and JTAG chains'. It mentions the underlying commands (quartus_pgm and jtagconfig), which adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like quartus_program_device or quartus_info, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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, when-not scenarios, or alternatives. For a tool with many siblings, this omission is significant.

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