run_project_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state that the tool does not launch build runs, implying a read-only diagnostic behavior. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open), potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens when inputs are invalid.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the critical non-build constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the overall context is incomplete for a tool with 10 optional parameters and no annotations. The description communicates general purpose but omits parameter roles, prerequisites, and behavioral caveats, leaving an agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 only 10%, with the sole described parameter being vivado_path. The description offers no explanations for the other nine parameters, so top, part, simset, fileset, run_name, timeout_s, project_dir, apply_waivers, and report_manifest_path remain semantically undocumented. Parameter names are suggestive but do not compensate for the lack of schema or description details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') with a clear resource ('Project Mode health, signoff, manifests, waivers, and next-step diagnostics') and adds a key scoping constraint ('without launching build runs'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as run_pre_hw_signoff or collect_report_bundle.

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 clause 'without launching build runs' implies this tool is for non-intrusive audit/diagnostic queries rather than actual builds, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, when not to use it, or which conditions warrant a different tool. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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