ModelSim 文档/命令检索

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it states 'pure keyword, zero extra cost' (no side effects/cheap), explains that PDFs return paths for the host to Read directly, and defines the distinct output shapes for command, query, and no-query calls. It does not discuss failure/empty-result behavior, but for a read-only search tool the disclosed traits are strong.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core function is front-loaded, parameter behaviors are compressed into one sentence, and the final clause about full syntax via fpga_msim_exe is a self-contained routing note. Every phrase earns its place.

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 a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, data sources, per-mode outputs, cost, and the sibling tool for full syntax. Minor gaps remain around the exact JSON shape of result lists and error cases, but nothing an agent needs to choose and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds interaction semantics the schema lacks: command returns description+arguments, query triggers keyword recall, kind scopes the search, limit applies to query results, and omitting query returns a summary. This is meaningfully beyond the parameter names and examples in the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: it searches the ModelSim command reference (structured corpus from docs/cmd_help/*.txt) plus the manual PDF registry (docs/pdfdocs/*.pdf). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fpga_msim_exe (execution), fpga_msim_sim (simulation), and fpga_doc_search (general docs).

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 maps each invocation mode to its outcome (command=exact lookup, query=keyword recall, kind=all/command/manual, no-query=summary), and explicitly routes the need for full command syntax to the sibling tool fpga_msim_exe <tool> -help. This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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