verify_io_placement_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool auto-reads XDC files, supports both -dict and traditional syntax, compares with report_io, and classifies mismatches as CRITICAL (GT) or WARNING (GPIO). This provides clear behavioral insight beyond what structured fields offer, though it does not explicitly state read-only or side effects (likely none for a verification tool).

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: purpose statement, detailed behavior, severity rules, then parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 is moderately complex (reads XDC, compares with report_io, outputs severity). The description covers what it does and its severity logic. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether report_io must already be generated) or return structure, but since an output schema exists (context indicates), the description needn't detail return values. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke.

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 one parameter (session_id) with no description in the schema (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides a concise but adequate meaning: '目标会话 ID' (target session ID). For a single optional param with a default, this is sufficient, though it could have added more context about how session_id affects which XDC/report is used.

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 purpose: '验证 IO 引脚分配' (verify IO pin assignment) and specifies it compares XDC constraints with actual layout. It distinguishes itself from siblings like xdc_lint (syntax checking) and get_io_report (report retrieval) by focusing on the comparison and error detection.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to verify IO pin consistency between XDC and actual placement) and gives context (reads PACKAGE_PIN constraints, compares with report_io). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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