run_implementation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the sequential stage composition and that the returned status comes from the impl_1 run object ('ground-truth'), hinting other status sources may be stale. It omits whether existing implementation results are overwritten, that it is long-running and blocking (only inferable from the 90-minute default timeout in the schema), and whether prior state is destroyed.

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?

Two short sentences with the stage sequence front-loaded and the return-value note second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 long-running flow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state prerequisites and side effects (overwritten runs, blocking behavior). It covers the pipeline and return semantics but leaves those operational facts missing.

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 100% and both parameters carry defaults and units inline, so the schema already does the documentation work. The description adds no tuning guidance such as when to raise jobs or shorten timeout, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates the exact pipeline stages (opt_design -> place_design -> route_design), which clearly separates it from run_synthesis and generate_bitstream siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the stage list does most of that work.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the step after synthesis, but the description never states prerequisites (open project, completed synthesis) or when to rerun it versus restarting the flow. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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