report_timing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose real behaviors: bus bits are auto-quoted, timeout_s=0 means wait indefinitely with stall detection, and json format may be unsupported. It does not state that this is a non-destructive read, nor that a design/session must already be loaded, which are meaningful gaps for a stateless-looking call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line followed by a tight per-parameter list with no filler prose. Only weakness is that the two default formats, 'full' and 'full_clock_expanded', are never explained, so the list is slightly asymmetrical.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description supplies nearly all parameter meaning, and the existing output schema removes the need to document return values. The remaining gaps are the missing design-loaded prerequisite and unexplained 'full'/'full_clock_expanded' formats.

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 it does: it defines path_delay, path_count, scope enum values, from_pin/to_pin targeting rules, fields, format, and timeout_s semantics. Seven of the eight parameters get explicit meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Report timing paths') and names the underlying command (OpenSTA report_checks), which pins down exactly what executes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like report_power or get_summary without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage context (static timing analysis) is implied by the parameter glossary, and there is one routing hint ('check with run_tcl "help report_checks"' before using json format). However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on required preconditions such as a loaded design relative to siblings like load_design or get_status.

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