fpga_synth

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.