check_bitstream_readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does this exceptionally well. It specifies exactly what is inspected (route completion, CRITICAL WARNING count, WNS/WHS convergence) and defines the READY/BLOCK/WARN outcomes, including the important limitation that READY is not proof of complete sign-off or hardware functionality. This gives the agent accurate expectations well beyond the bare schema.

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 well-structured with a short introduction, bulleted check dimensions, and explicit return outcomescars. Every section earns its place, and the content is scannable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. The length is justified by the composite nature of the tool.

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?

For a composite tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, invocation timing, checked dimensions, outcome meanings, and limitations. The only notable gaps are the imprecise WARN/BLOCK threshold and the lack of deeper session_id semantics, but these are minor given the presence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The Args section adds minimal meaning by labeling impl_run as an implementation run name and session_id as a target session ID, but this mostly restates the schema titles/defaults. It does not explain session lifecycle, required session state, or how the run name affects checks.

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 tool's purpose: checking implementation status, timing summary, and critical warnings before bitstream generation. It enumerates the exact check dimensions, so an agent understands what is covered and that this is a composite readiness check. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from sibling tools like get_critical_warnings or get_timing_report, but the aggregate PASS/BLOCK/WARN framing makes the distinction clear enough.

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 gives a strong usage trigger: use this tool immediately before generate_bitstream or program_device, framing it as a last check before departure. It explains that the tool catches issues before board flashing, which is clear context for when to use it. However, it does not list alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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