parse_ltx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: completely offline, no board connection or Vivado launch required, and that .ltx files are JSON format for Vivado 2019.1. It does not explicitly mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only parse tool, the offline and format details are sufficient context.

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 starts with a clear, front-loaded summary of the tool's purpose. Each additional sentence adds context (use case, alternative, file format, arguments), but the middle sentence about 'set_property TRIGGER_COMPARE_VALUE' is somewhat verbose and could be tightened. Overall it's appropriately sized with no irrelevant filler, but it leans slightly wordy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, the alternative, the parameter semantics, and the file format. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description need not explain those. This is a well-rounded, self-contained description.

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 has 0% description coverage, with only a raw string type for file_path. The description compensates by stating '.ltx 文件的绝对路径' (absolute path of the .ltx file), adding meaning beyond the schema: the file extension and absolute path requirement. This directly addresses the parameter's meaning and constraints.

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: offline parsing of ILA debug probe files (.ltx). It specifies the exact resource (ILA debug probe file), the verb (离线解析/parse), and the context (no board/Vivado needed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_xpr and parse_bit_header, which target different file types.

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 explains when to use this tool: before board-connected ILA capture, to get an offline inventory of probes. It names the alternative (get_hw_probes) and states why this tool is better in that scenario: get_hw_probes requires a board and a live hardware session, while this tool is fully offline. This provides clear usage guidance and comparison.

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