parse_xpr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals key behavioral traits: it is pure Python, runs fully offline, and does not start Vivado, avoiding known crashes. It also lists the exact data it extracts (part, top, source files, XDC, runs). However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or what happens with malformed .xpr files, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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 and information-dense: it starts with purpose, then usage context, then extracted data, and ends with parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy or filler. Despite its length, it remains focused and readable.

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 (multiple output categories) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, and the parameter semantics. The output schema handles return structure, so the description is complete for an agent to select and 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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents the only parameter: 'file_path: .xpr 工程文件的绝对路径', which adds the crucial requirement of an absolute path beyond the schema's bare 'File Path'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema description and leaves no ambiguity.

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 a specific action ('离线解析 Vivado 工程文件(.xpr)') and resource (.xpr files), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_project_info by noting that this tool is fully offline while the alternative requires start_session and open_project. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates from similar tools.

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 concrete use cases ('秒级摸底陌生工程 / CI 门禁') and contrasts with get_project_info, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (offline, no Vivado) versus alternatives (session-based tools). It also mentions avoiding 120s GUI cold start and TclStackFree crash, which are specific reasons for choosing this tool.

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