Inspect compiled waveform port names

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the 32MiB file ceiling and the explicit set of unsupported cases (internal EDIF nets, ambiguous arrays, INOUT), which an agent needs to anticipate partial results.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the workflow hint last. Minor typo ('up to32MiB') and slight density but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, so the description carries some burden, but for a read/inspect tool it adequately conveys input source (.edo), transformation (port→simulator name mapping, vector ranges, flattening), and unsupported cases. Only the return shape is left implicit.

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 all 7 parameters (path, limit, offset, project, workspace, childLimit, childOffset). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as path scoping or pagination syntax, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read an exported .edo file') and precisely what it produces: mapping top-level input/output ports to MAX+plus II Simulator names. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scf_ports_import or scf_inspect, which handle different stages.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: 'Use netlist_export then inspect this fresh file,' which names the producer/alternative. It gives clear context for when this tool applies but does not state exclusions or contrast against other inspect tools beyond the netlist dependency.

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