Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fpga_toolchain_infoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool 'returns' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, or any environmental dependencies beyond vague 'active container/host'.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, focused sentence that succinctly lists exactly what the tool returns. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description explains the primary output (versions of Yosys, nextpnr, icepack, ecppack, iceprog) and the context (active container/host runtime). It lacks detail on output format or what 'active' means, but for such a simple informational tool, this is adequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to explain. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because none exist; the schema coverage is effectively 100%.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states that the tool returns active container/host runtime and versions of specific toolchain components. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (synth, place_route, bitstream, program, boards) which perform actions rather than report environment information.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. It only describes what it returns, leaving the caller to infer when it is appropriate.

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

• fpga_bitstreamA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the conversion action and the optional flag, but does not mention output file behavior, side effects, or resource implications. This is partial transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary technical details (icepack/ecppack, compress option) without any fluff or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Provides enough context for a moderate-complexity tool: explains what it does, mentions the next step (fpga_program), and clarifies the optional compress flag. It does not specify output file naming, but this is not essential for the tool's use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about conversion tools and the ECP5-only compress option, but the schema already describes all parameters well. No significant additional parameter meaning is provided.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  States a specific verb ('packs') and resource ('routed image to bitstream'), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning the exact tools (icepack, ecppack) and input/output formats. This clearly identifies the tool's role in the FPGA flow.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Clearly implies the tool is used after routing and before programming by saying 'Feed the result into fpga_program'. It also explains the optional --compress flag for ECP5. It does not explicitly state when not to use it relative to all siblings, but the workflow context is strong.

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

• fpga_place_routeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes the main action and output, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it writes files or produces a routed netlist) or error conditions. Since annotations are absent, this is a partial disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Few sentences, no fluff, directly states purpose, inputs, and output.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Covers inputs, output summary, and resolution logic. However, without an output schema, it does not fully describe the return value or any other outputs, and it omits prerequisites like prior synthesis.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  All parameters are described in the schema, and the description adds context about the netlist origin (from fpga_synth) and the priority of explicit device/package over board preset.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states it runs nextpnr place-and-route for iCE40/ECP5, from a Yosys JSON netlist, and describes the output (utilization and Fmax). It is distinct from synthesis, bitstream, and programming tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides guidance on device/package resolution and points to fpga_boards for presets. It does not explicitly say when to use vs alternatives, but the place-and-route role is clear.

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

• fpga_boardsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description says 'lists', which transparently indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden, and 'lists' adequately conveys the behavior without requiring further side-effect disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise, with two short sentences that directly state purpose and usage. No unnecessary words or redundant details are included.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description gives enough context for a board-preset listing operation, including its role in place-and-route targeting. It does not describe output format, but the output is implied to be a list of presets, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are no parameters in the schema, so there is nothing to explain. The empty schema is fully covered and the description does not need to add parameter details.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states the tool lists board presets (device, package, programmer) and explicitly connects them to place-and-route targeting. The verb 'lists' and resource 'board presets' are specific and distinguish this from sibling tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly instructs to use a preset as input to fpga_place_route, which gives practical guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like fpga_synth or fpga_bitstream, but the purpose is clear enough for typical usage.

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

• fpga_synthA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behaviors: uses Yosys with synth_ice40/synth_ecp5, returns cell and wire counts, and outputs a JSON netlist for nextpnr. No side effects mentioned, and annotations are absent; still, it covers the essential operational behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and include a flow pointer. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's role and output.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return value (cell and wire counts) and the destination of the netlist (fpga_place_route), making the tool's context complete for an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between family and synth commands.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states the tool synthesizes RTL to a nextpnr-ready JSON netlist using Yosys, and distinguishes it as the first stage of the FPGA flow with a direct link to fpga_place_route.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly places the tool in the flow: 'First stage of the FPGA flow; feed jsonNetlist into fpga_place_route', providing clear guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools.

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

• fpga_programA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even without annotations, the description transparently discloses that dry-run only reports the command, real flashing writes to hardware, and potential tool absence for ECP5. This reliably informs the agent of side effects and limitations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences deliver all essential information without fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by caveats.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity, the description fully captures the necessary context: the hardware requirement, the default behavior, and a critical dependency for a different target. No critical missing information for an agent to call it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra context by explaining the default value of dry_run and clarifying that the bitstream is for iCE40, going slightly beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states the verb 'Flashes' and specific target 'iCE40 bitstream via iceprog', and also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the alternative ECP5 path. The action and resource are unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit guidance on default dry-run behavior, warns that real flashing requires hardware the host cannot verify, and alerts that ECP5 needs openFPGALoader which is absent. This gives clear when-to-use and expected behavior.

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