cadence_probe

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 discloses return content and the default auto-search behavior (C:/Cadence and $CDSROOT), which implies a non-destructive read, but it never explicitly states read-only/non-mutating semantics, latency, or whether probing invokes external executables.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and return inventory, with the usage cue appended. The return list is somewhat dense but every element is informative; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing what the probe returns, and the single parameter is covered by the schema. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though side-effect/safety expectations remain unstated.

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% and the single parameter cds_root is fully documented in the schema, including the auto-search default. The description adds no syntax or override semantics beyond what the schema already states, so 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?

States a specific verb (probe) and resource (Cadence EDA toolchain) and enumerates what it returns (SPB root, executables, license status, PSpice model paths, Allegro batch commands). That enumeration meaningfully separates it from siblings like cadence_env_vars and allegro_batch_commands, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly states the usage context: '这是新会话的第一调用,了解环境' — the first call in a new session to understand the environment. This gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or pointing at the alternative probe tools.

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