ModelSim 通用 do 脚本直通 (vsim -c)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses forced headless mode, automatic quit -f to prevent hangs, the confirm guard for host-reaching commands, remote staging behavior, and the top-vs-script-driven vsim modes. This is strong transparency for an arbitrary-script 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.

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

The description is dense but purposeful, front-loading the purpose and then grouping execution safety and invocation modes. Parentheticals make it a bit packed, but every clause contributes.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers core invocation modes, safety, and remote behavior well. It could go further on return granularity and failure behavior, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning for confirm, the top/lib relationship, remote host staging, and vsimArgs examples. It does not define summary vs full, but that is minor given the rich 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?

States a specific action: run arbitrary do/Tcl scripts through vsim -c, with concrete examples of covered use cases. The '通用/长尾' framing distinguishes it from more specialized sibling tools.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: long-tail do/Tcl workflows covering coverage, UVM, WLF, force/examine, and custom run control. It also specifies when confirm:true is required. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like fpga_msim_sim or fpga_msim_compile, but the niche is clear.

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