Program device

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive nature (overwriting device), dependency on external tools, or runtime behavior. Lacks critical safety and side-effect information.

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?

Single sentence is concise and covers the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for modes) but efficiently communicates the key idea.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. Does not explain return values, error behavior, or parameter relationships like installRoot/workingDir. Lacks completeness for a complex programming tool.

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?

While schema covers 70% of parameters individually, the description adds valuable context: it explains the interplay between cdfFile and operations (operations ignored when cdfFile set). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action (program), the resource (device through quartus_pgm), and the two methods (CDF file or explicit operations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like quartus_create_project by focusing on device programming.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., cable must be connected, quartus_pgm required), or when not to use. The description only mentions two methods but does not guide selection.

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