fpga_bitstream

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.