Run Quartus stage executable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run one Quartus command-stage executable' and lists examples, but fails to mention that it launches a process, blocks until completion, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. The lack of side-effect or safety information is a gap.

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 unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices informative content.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain what happens after execution, how to interpret results, or preconditions. For a complex tool, the description is incomplete.

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 82% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only gives examples of stage values. The schema already describes parameters adequately, so no penalty.

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 'Run' and the resource 'Quartus command-stage executable', with specific examples like quartus_map, quartus_fit. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools such as quartus_run_flow by focusing on individual stages.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quartus_run_flow, quartus_run_tcl, or quartus_read_report. The description does not help an agent decide between siblings.

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