fpga_toolchain_info

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.