get_run_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explain whether the call blocks, whether timeout_s causes waiting, what expect_bitstream affects, or whether any side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it is under-specified for the number of parameters and behavioral nuances; its brevity is not matched by adequate content.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks necessary context about what constitutes a run, how to select it, whether the tool blocks or polls, and how timeout_s and expect_bitstream affect invocation. The description is not complete enough for correct agent usage.

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 adds no parameter meaning. The parameter names suggest run_name identifies the run, timeout_s is a timeout, and expect_bitstream is a boolean flag, but their exact semantics, units, defaults, and interplay are left undefined.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Vivado run status and progress'), which is clear and distinct from most sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related status/simulation tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_simulation_result, get_workflow_trace_status, or diagnose_run_failure. The context of polling a running synthesis/implementation/bitstream process is implied but never stated.

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