get_signal_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Read' implies non-destructive access, the description fails to disclose return value format, error behavior (e.g., invalid signal paths), or timing characteristics (snapshot vs. sampled).

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 efficiently structured with a clear one-sentence summary followed by an Args section documenting the single parameter. No redundant or wasted text.

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 single-parameter read operation with an output schema (which obviates the need to describe return values), the description is adequate. It could be improved by noting the hardware simulation context or error handling, but covers the essential contract.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting the signals parameter as 'List of signal paths' and providing concrete hardware simulation examples (e.g., '/tb/dut/clk', '/tb/dut/data[7:0]').

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current values of one or more signals'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like deposit_value (write operation), describe_signal (metadata), and list_signals (enumeration).

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 usage through the word 'Read' (suggesting this is for retrieval vs. modification), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternatives like describe_signal.

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