Create original-format waveform stimulus

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), but the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that it will never overwrite an existing file, which explains the non-idempotent hint concretely. It also ties into the verification workflow, which annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences that front-load creation and scope, then units/grid, then the overwrite and verification caveats. Little waste, though the verification sentence drifts slightly from the tool's own behavior.

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?

For a 6-parameter file-creation tool with no output schema and fully documented inputs, the description supplies format version, time units and grid, event-value domain, overwrite policy, and a verification recommendation. It omits the confirm preview/apply default, but the schema already states it.

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 all six parameters are already documented, including the 0.1ns grid and the 0/1/X/Z value domain. The description restates input names and event values without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: create a version4 SCF waveform file directly, explicitly bypassing the VEC and GUI pathways. That distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_from_compiled_create, though the sibling is not named outright.

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 phrase 'directly without VEC or GUI' implies when this creation path applies, and it prescribes using a matching compiled netlist plus original simulator for verification. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so routing between it and scf_from_compiled_create is left to inference.

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