deploy_to_redpitaya

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the transport (SSH/SCP), the two loader mechanisms and their OS support matrix, and that no Vivado session is required. It does not state that loading overwrites the currently running FPGA configuration or what happens on failure, which matters for a mutating remote operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then mechanism, then the prerequisite clarification. Every sentence carries information; nothing is restated from the schema.

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?

For a 10-parameter remote-deployment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers transport, loader choice, OS versions and toolchain prerequisites. Missing are failure behavior and the fact that the existing FPGA image is replaced, which would complete the picture.

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 100%, so the schema already documents host, port, user, password, method, keep_remote and remote_path defaults. The description only adds the method/OS compatibility nuance, which the enum description already largely covers. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+transport: copy a .bit.bin to a Red Pitaya over SSH/SCP and load it into the FPGA. This clearly separates it from generate_cfgmem (which produces the artifact) and program_device (Vivado hardware manager path).

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?

Implicitly routes from generate_cfgmem ('the local .bit.bin produced by generate_cfgmem') and clarifies it needs no Vivado session, which distinguishes it from program_device. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it, e.g. when a JTAG/Vivado hardware path is preferred.

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