collect_build_artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core side effects: copying artifacts and writing manifest.json. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether vmcp_artifacts is created if missing, or whether a prior successful build is required.

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 with no filler, leading with the action and artifact types. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 communicates the basic operation but omits workflow prerequisites, parameter meanings, and differentiation from similar collection tools. Even with an output schema present, the missing usage and parameter guidance leaves the definition incomplete for correct 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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (run_name, timeout_s, output_dir). The relation between output_dir and the stated destination vmcp_artifacts is ambiguous, and no parameter is given any semantic context beyond its name.

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 names a specific verb ('Copy'), a concrete set of resources ('bitstream, probes, checkpoints, reports, and Vivado metadata'), and a destination ('vmcp_artifacts') plus a manifest creation step. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like collect_report_bundle or collect_diagnostic_bundle by the explicit artifact list.

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 this tool should be invoked, e.g., after generate_bitstream or run_implementation, and does not contrast it with the similar sibling tools collect_report_bundle and collect_diagnostic_bundle. Usage context is only weakly implied by the tool name and artifact types.

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