gowin_timing

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It lists outputs but doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions, or limitations. It mentions 'worst paths' but lacks detail on what constitutes 'worst'.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently front-loads key outputs (fMax, slack, worst paths). No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description lists output types but doesn't detail structure. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning whether results are per-clock or overall.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score 3.

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 clearly states the tool provides timing details for a single build, listing specific metrics like fMax, total negative slack, and worst paths. It distinguishes from siblings like gowin_summary and gowin_resources.

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 description implies this tool is for one build but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like gowin_summary or gowin_compare. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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