fpga_boards

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.