check_bitstream_readiness

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

The description discloses specific checks performed (route_design completion, critical warning count, timing closure) and maps them to the three outcomes. It also explains the implication of critical warnings. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden, and it does so thoroughly.

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 title, rationale, bulleted checks, outcomes, and args. Every section contributes useful information, though the Args section repeats schema defaults, creating mild redundancy. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with purpose.

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 the tool's simple nature, the presence of an output schema, and the description's coverage of when to use, what is checked, and what outputs mean, it is fully complete. The description would be sufficient even without the output schema, and with it, all necessary context is provided.

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?

The schema provides only parameter names and defaults with no descriptions. The description adds one-line explanations for impl_run (implementation run name) and session_id (target session ID), which are slightly more informative than the parameter names alone. However, it does not explain valid values or how they affect the check, so it only partially compensates for the missing 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?

The description clearly states this is a pre-flight check that evaluates whether a project can safely generate a bitstream, returning READY/BLOCK/WARN. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_bitstream and program_device by being a pre-check. The slight inconsistency between PASS and READY does not undermine the purpose.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool before generate_bitstream or program_device, preventing issues after board burn. This provides clear contextual guidance. The 'before...' formulation effectively indicates when to use it, and alternatives are implied by the sibling tool names.

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