Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• simulate_verilogC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('simulate') but doesn't explain what the simulation does (e.g., runs tests, generates waveforms), potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely produces results or logs.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the tool implementation detail ('Icarus Verilog'), making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of simulation tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the simulation returns (e.g., success/failure, waveforms, logs), error conditions, or how it integrates with siblings like 'view_waveform'. This gap makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('verilog_code' and 'testbench_code'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as code format expectations or examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without extra value from the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('simulate') and target ('Verilog code'), and specifies the tool used ('Icarus Verilog'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'synthesize_verilog' or 'view_waveform', which might be related operations in the same domain.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing both design and testbench code), compare to siblings like 'run_openlane' or 'view_waveform', or specify scenarios where simulation is appropriate over other tools.

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

• synthesize_verilogC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the tool (Yosys) and target types, but doesn't disclose execution details like runtime, error handling, output format, or resource requirements, leaving significant gaps for a synthesis operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (synthesize Verilog code). It avoids redundancy but could be more structured by separating tool details from target scope.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a synthesis tool. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and integration with sibling tools, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying synthesis for FPGA targets, which aligns with the target parameter but doesn't enhance understanding of verilog_code or top_module beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('synthesize') and resource ('Verilog code'), specifying the tool (Yosys) and target scope (FPGA targets). It distinguishes from siblings like simulate_verilog or run_openlane by focusing on synthesis rather than simulation or full flows, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies synthesis for FPGA targets, it doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to siblings like simulate_verilog for verification or run_openlane for complete implementation.

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

• view_gdsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Open') but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., launches a viewer, requires GUI access, may be interactive, or returns status). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling for a tool that likely involves external applications.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of opening a file in an external viewer (which may involve GUI dependencies, error states, or interactive behavior), the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't address what the tool returns, how failures are handled, or any system requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 both parameters fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between project_id and gds_file, or typical use cases for providing gds_file). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Open') and the resource ('GDSII file in KLayout viewer'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_waveform' which might also involve viewing operations in different contexts.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing OpenLane project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'read_openlane_reports' or 'view_waveform'.

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

• view_waveformB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a viewer (implying a UI action), but doesn't mention whether this launches an external application, requires GUI access, blocks execution, or has side effects. For a tool that likely interacts with external software, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (opening a waveform viewer), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but omits important behavioral context (e.g., how the viewer launches, what happens on success/failure). The schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is limited.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (project_id and vcd_file). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does all the work.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Open') and the resource ('VCD waveform file in GTKWave viewer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_gds' (which likely opens GDS files), but the specific file format (VCD) and viewer (GTKWave) provide inherent differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a simulation result), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'simulate_verilog' or 'view_gds'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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

• read_openlane_reportsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads reports and returns data for analysis, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'read' but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the main function ('Read OpenLane report files for LLM analysis') and follows with additional context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and general use. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention safety (e.g., read-only) or data format expectations. The lack of output schema means the description doesn't explain return values, which is a gap for completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'report_type') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'specific category' and 'detailed analysis of PPA metrics, timing, routing quality', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read OpenLane report files for LLM analysis' specifies the verb (read) and resource (OpenLane report files). It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_openlane' or 'view_gds' by focusing on report analysis rather than execution or visualization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'view_waveform' which might also involve reading data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context ('for LLM analysis' and 'detailed analysis of PPA metrics, timing, routing quality') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_openlane' for execution or 'view_gds' for visualization. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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

• run_openlaneA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical time constraint ('can take up to 10 minutes'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like error handling, resource requirements, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a complex execution tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds crucial behavioral context (time constraint). Every element earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a complex 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and time constraint but lacks information about what happens after execution, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like 'view_gds' for results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Run complete ASIC design flow') and resource ('using OpenLane'), with precise scope ('RTL to GDSII'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'synthesize_verilog' (partial flow) and 'read_openlane_reports' (analysis only).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for full ASIC implementation from RTL, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'synthesize_verilog' for partial flow or 'simulate_verilog' for verification. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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