get_utilization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default output type ('parsed metrics only') but does not mention read-only status, potential side effects, or return format details. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose with specific resource types, the second provides usage differentiation. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 the tool has 4 parameters with good schema descriptions but no output schema or annotations, the description could better clarify the return format. However, it explains default behavior and alternative for deeper detail, making it fairly complete for a retrieval tool.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Under the rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specifies the exact resources (LUT, FF, BRAM, DSP, IO) and states the default behavior (parsed metrics only). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool generate_full_report, making the purpose clear and specific.

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 mentions an alternative tool for hierarchical details ('Use generate_full_report for hierarchical details'), providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't elaborate on when exactly to use this tool over others.

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