run_tcl_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auto-start behavior, which is a key trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects of arbitrary TCL commands, error handling, or session state management, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action followed by the auto-start note. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main inputs and outcome. It lacks details on output format, but the statement 'return its output' is sufficient for a command execution tool with sibling tools managing sessions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond stating 'arbitrary TCL command' and 'persistent Vivado session,' but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 states 'Send an arbitrary TCL command to the persistent Vivado session and return its output,' which specifies the verb (send, return) and resource (TCL command to Vivado session). It distinguishes from sibling tools (session_status, start_session, stop_session) by focusing on command execution.

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 by stating 'Auto-starts a session if none exists,' suggesting this tool can be used without manually starting a session. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like session_status or start_session, leaving some implicit guidance.

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