suggest_protocol_bundles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: read-only behavior is stated, the initiator-only HWDATA withholding is explained with rationale ('interconnect-mux output that glitches at the clock edge... to stay zero-FP'), and the direction_tag degradation rule ('unknown/conflicting markers degrade to direction_tag=\'unknown\' rather than guessing') is disclosed. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent clause adds distinct behavioral or domain value. It is long, but the length is warranted by the tool's protocol-specific complexity; a modest trim of parentheticals would be possible without losing substance.

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?

This is a complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description compensates well by specifying candidate contents per protocol, the directional caveats, and the read-only safety property. The main gap is that the exact return structure/shape is not spelled out, leaving some inference about how candidates are packaged.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the terses enum: it explains exactly what AHB candidates contain (valid_htrans + ready + payload, plus hwrite/write_data only on initiator interfaces) and what APB candidates contain (psel/penable/pready + derived-valid requirement), substantially enriching the protocol parameter semantics.

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 opening sentence, 'Scan a waveform for protocol-specific AHB/APB bundles,' states a specific verb, resource, and scoped protocol family. The detailed AHB-vs-APB candidate descriptions (inspect_handshake args, valid_htrans, psel/penable) clearly separate this from siblings like suggest_handshakes.

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 gives strong context for when the tool is appropriate: AHB/APB protocol discovery, initiator-side versus responder-side handling, and the APB derived-valid caveat. It also adds the constraint 'Reads existing waveforms only.' However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., suggest_handshakes) or states when not to use this tool.

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