report_power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior: output is in watts, and the switching-activity provenance (VCD/SAIF read through run_tcl vs OpenSTA default, in which case values are estimates). However, it says nothing about permissions, that this is purely read-only, or any side effects/rate characteristics.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then per-parameter notes, then a provenance caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the embedded parameter notes read like schema comments rather than prose and the final paragraph is slightly disjointed from the opening.

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 return values need not be re-explained, and the description still adds the key interpretive note about where switching activity came from. Given two optional params and no annotations, it is nearly complete, missing only explicit read-only/safety framing.

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 compensate and largely does: top_instances is defined as 'list this many highest-power instances (0 = none)' and format as a 'text' table or 'json', adding the non-obvious caveat that the instance list is always text. Only minor gaps remain (defaults, interaction with hierarchy).

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 (report power) and enumerates the exact breakdown dimensions (sequential, combinational, clock, macro, pad groups; internal, switching, leakage components) plus units (watts). This is clearly distinct from report_timing and get_summary by domain, though the description never explicitly routes against siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says to prefer this over get_summary or report_timing, nor what prerequisites (e.g., a loaded design, prior run_tcl activity read) are needed. The usage context is only inferable from the tool name.

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