get_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only describes output content. It does not state that this is a read-only query, nor that a design must be loaded first (a real prerequisite in EDA sessions), nor any unit conventions. The risk is low for a summary getter, but the disclosure gap is real.

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?

One front-loaded sentence followed by a compact metric list; every item earns its place and there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it does so anyway (harmless). The missing piece is the operational context: whether a design must be loaded and what units the numbers use, which matters in a session-based EDA 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Timing and size summary as numbers') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (slack, TNS, WNS, clock period, fmax, DRC counts, cell/net counts). It distinguishes itself from report_timing/report_power by framing itself as a numeric summary, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling report_timing or report_power tools. Usage is only implied by the content enumeration ('summary as numbers'), which suggests a quick overview rather than a detailed report, but the agent must infer this.

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