打开 ModelSim 波形 GUI (本机交互查看)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the GUI process runs detached from MCP with immediate return, VCD is auto-converted via vcd2wlf to WLF, omitted signals default to add wave -r /*, omitted groups auto-group by VCD hierarchy scope, and launch:false only converts and returns a command. This is rich behavioral context far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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, not bloated, and front-loaded with the core purpose followed by behavioral specifics. Every sentence earns its place; the sibling-routing and launch:false notes are placed at the end where they serve as clarifications rather than competing with the main statement.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, defaults, runtime behavior, local/remote nuance, and sibling routing. Minor gaps remain: the return value in default launch:true mode is not described, and behavior when both vcdPath and wlfPath are supplied (schema says '二选一' but no validation behavior is stated) is unaddressed.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value above the schema by explaining the signals default behavior (add wave -r /*), the launch:false semantics (convert-only, no GUI), and the VCD→WLF pipeline that links vcdPath and wlfPath. It doesn't elaborate on radix or timeoutSec, but the schema already documents those fully.

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 (open ModelSim GUI to view waveforms interactively with zoom/measure/hierarchy expansion) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling fpga_wave, which serves static images/browser viewing. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 explicitly names the alternative (fpga_wave for static images/browser) and the condition that selects it, states the local-path context (VCD already pulled back locally), and clarifies that launch:false is for scripting/testing. No ambiguity about when to invoke this tool remains.

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