compare_xci

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool directly reads XML files and does not require a Vivado session, implying a non-destructive read operation. It also explains the default behavior of the show_all parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention whether any writes or modifications occur, though the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 concise and well-structured: a high-level summary, followed by use cases, and then parameter details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan, and the parameter bullets are clear.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the input semantics, use cases, and the show_all flag. It does not need to describe return values because the output schema already provides that. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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's parameter explanations are essential. It defines file_a as the baseline/normal configuration and file_b as the to-be-checked/abnormal configuration, adding directional meaning that the schema lacks. It also clarifies show_all's default false behavior, fully compensating 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 the tool's function: comparing IP configuration differences between two XCI files. It uses a specific verb ('对比') and resource ('两个 XCI 文件的 IP 配置'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inspect_ip_params by focusing on comparison rather than single-file inspection.

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 explicit use scenarios: version comparison, board migration validation, and debugging IP parameter differences. It also notes that no Vivado session is required, helping the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where this tool is not suitable.

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