parse_bit_header

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the tool is '只读文件头(不读 payload)' (read-only header, does not read payload), indicating no side effects. It also details the normalization behavior (removing 'xc' prefix and speed grade, restoring 'xc' but not speed grade), which is a key behavioral trait affecting output interpretation.

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 structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then details the extracted fields, use cases, a key caveat, and finally the argument. Every sentence adds value without redundancy; it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema, so return values need not be repeated, but the description still explains the extracted fields and the part-normalization caveat, giving the user enough context to interpret results. It also covers usage scenarios and limitations, making it complete for a read-only header parser.

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 input schema only specifies 'file_path' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by stating 'Args: file_path: .bit 文件的绝对路径' (absolute path of the .bit file), adding a crucial requirement beyond the schema's type information.

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: '离线解析 .bit 比特流文件头部' (offline parse .bit bitstream file header), with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the extracted fields (design name, target part, build date, SHA256), distinguishing it from siblings like parse_xpr and parse_ltx by file type and offline nature.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: '用于烧录前防错板(part 比对)、交付/返修对账' (for pre-programming board error prevention via part comparison, and delivery/repair reconciliation). It also notes that 'Vivado 无任何 Tcl 命令读离线 .bit' (Vivado has no Tcl command to read offline .bit), implying this is the only option, and provides a practical limitation about part-level comparison.

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