fpga_program

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.