ModelSim 仅编译 (vlog/vcom)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it reveals that success is determined by 'Errors: N' and '** Error' rather than the exit code, that encrypted IEEE-1735 IP is natively decrypted by vlog, and that caching affects recompilation. This materially helps an agent predict tool behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 four short, dense sentences with the core scope front-loaded, followed by behavioral caveats. There is no filler, and every sentence adds useful operational information.

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 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: compile-only scope, language-to-tool mapping, success criteria, encrypted IP, cache, and detail modes. It does not describe the exact output structure or explicitly route to simulation alternatives, but those are modest gaps given the rich parameter schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters in detail. The description mentions cache, detail:'full', and encrypted sources, but these largely restate schema content rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '只编译' (compile only), maps Verilog/SV to vlog and VHDL to vcom, and specifies the purpose as syntax/early checks. It also distinguishes itself from a simulation run by explicitly saying '不运行 vsim', which separates it from sibling fpga_msim_sim.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: compile-only before simulation, for syntax/early checking, with encrypted-IP handling and cache behavior. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state 'use fpga_msim_sim instead', so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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