Run Quartus Tcl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs commands via quartus_sh but omits critical traits: whether it modifies project state, requires prerequisites (e.g., an open project), or has side effects. The description is too terse to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain common use cases, return values, or how parameters interact (e.g., the mutual exclusivity of tclCommand, script, and scriptPath is not hinted). Given the tool's complexity, the description is too minimal to be fully complete.

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 75% (9 of 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema), which is high but not >80%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—it merely summarizes the tool's purpose. Given the schema already documents most parameters, the description's lack of additional parameter information is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 specific verbs ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('Quartus Tcl command, inline script, or script file through quartus_sh'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that perform specific Quartus tasks (e.g., quartus_run_flow) by highlighting its general-purpose Tcl execution capability.

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 versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for specific operations (e.g., quartus_create_project, quartus_run_flow), but the description does not indicate that this tool is for arbitrary Tcl commands not covered by those specialized tools. No when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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