vivado

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that import_report caches data for compare and that compare marks >10% differences. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting PDM data), error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral details are partial.

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 structured with action definitions and parameter lists, but it is verbose and mixes Chinese and English, which may reduce clarity. Some information (e.g., the first line in Chinese) is redundant. It could be more concise while maintaining completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three actions, six parameters), the description covers basic usage but lacks details on output format, error handling, and prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still feels incomplete for a multi-action tool.

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 add meaning. It explains report_path, label, util_report_path, and block_name with context. However, session_id is mentioned without explanation, and default values are not clarified. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a Vivado import and comparison tool with three specific actions (import_report, compare, import_utilization). It uses specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'estimate' or 'power_design', which could overlap in functionality.

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 implies usage contexts for each action (e.g., import_report for analysis, compare for difference detection) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned. The description is adequate but not directive.

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