get_sim_paths

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that explicit fields are used verbatim, omitted fields are auto-discovered, and a sim_log path also anchors discovery of related files. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect status, but 'discover' implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by concise conditional behavior for omitted case_name and explicit path overrides. Every sentence contributes useful guidance.

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?

The description covers the main parameter interactions and conditional return behavior, which is important given there is no output schema or annotations. It does not spell out the exact return JSON shape, but the implied result (paths and/or case list) is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool successfully.

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 documents every parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining cross-parameter behavior: provided paths are used as-is, omitted ones are auto-discovered, and sim_log anchors the discovery of matching waveform/compile logs.

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 ('Discover') and names the exact resource types: compile logs, simulation logs, and waveform files under a verif directory. This clearly distinguishes it from analysis/parsing siblings such as parse_sim_log or get_waveform_summary.

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?

Provides actionable when-to guidance: omitting case_name returns available cases, and explicit paths are intended for non-standard layouts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the main conditional usage is clearly conveyed.

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