仿真断言判定

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden, but it only enumerates assertion kinds. It does not state how multiple assertions are evaluated, what pass/fail or return semantics are, or side effects such as the knowledge-vault write-back described in the schema.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the operation and target, the second lists supported assertion forms. No filler or tautology.

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?

The rich schema covers parameter semantics and the knowledge side effect, so the description is adequate for initial selection and invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the missing evaluation/return and usage-boundary information leaves material gaps for autonomous use.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value through '和/或' clarifying that log and vcdPath can be combined, and by paraphrasing enum meanings ('终值/指定时刻/永不等于').

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 names a specific operation ('做声明式断言判定') on a specific resource ('fpga_sim 日志和/或 VCD') and lists concrete assertion modes. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like fpga_sim, fpga_log_extract, and fpga_wave.

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 'fpga_sim 日志和/或 VCD' phrasing gives clear context that the tool validates simulation artifacts, and the supported assertion types signal when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it does not merit a 5.

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