Check if a DUT parameter exists in an IC-CAP project by providing its parameter path, ensuring valid references before further operations.
Check if a DUT parameter exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param_path | Yes | e.g. '/model/dut/PARAM_NAME' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only existence check with no apparent side effects, but it does not state what happens when the parameter is missing or what return value is produced.
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 a single focused sentence with no redundant wording. The action and object are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit return-value statement, but 'Check if ... exists' strongly implies a boolean result.
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?
The schema already provides full coverage for the single param_path parameter, including an example format. The description adds the semantic context that the path refers to a DUT parameter, but does not need to explain much more given the 100% schema coverage.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('DUT parameter'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes the tool from generic alternatives like object_exist and from parameter-existence checks for other object types such as mpar_exists or instrvar_exists.
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 implies the tool should be used when verifying whether a DUT parameter exists. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to sibling alternatives such as object_exist, mpar_exists, or dpar_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.