check_syntax

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a check is run. It does not reveal whether the check mutates the fileset, whether a session/project must already exist (given siblings like start_session and open_project), or whether artifacts are produced. The word 'native' hints at the mechanism but not the side effects.

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 nine-word sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficiently structured, even though the content is thin; the brevity itself is not the weakness.

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?

Though an output schema exists, the description omits critical operational context: preconditions (session/project state, given sibling tools start_session and open_project), side effects, and relationship to overlapping tools like analyze_sources. For a tool in a large suite with zero annotations, one sentence is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely references 'a fileset,' giving minimal meaning to the fileset parameter. The timeout_s parameter is completely unaddressed; the agent must infer its units and behavior from its name alone, and nothing in the description clarifies its role in the syntax check.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Vivado native syntax check') scoped to 'a fileset,' which clearly identifies the tool's core action. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings such as analyze_sources or check_timing_constraints, so it doesn't earn a 5, but the core purpose is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools including analyze_sources, check_timing_constraints, and detect_vivado_environment, the agent gets no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites to route correctly. No context for when 'native syntax check' is preferred over other verification flows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.