list_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the scope path is invalid, or performance characteristics (e.g., if listing large scopes is expensive). It only states the functional purpose, not behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized with clear front-loading: the first sentence establishes purpose, followed by structured Args documentation. The docstring-style format is slightly informal but efficient, with 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 2-parameter tool with simple types and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameters. However, given zero annotations and no mention of error handling, safety (read-only status), or relationships to the 20+ sibling simulator tools, it has notable gaps in contextual completeness.

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 (properties lack descriptions), the description fully compensates by providing precise semantics for both parameters: 'scope' includes format context 'Hierarchical scope path' with example '/tb/dut', and 'pattern' explains it is a 'Glob pattern' with default value '*'.

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 clearly states the tool 'List signals in a scope' with specific verb (List) and resource (signals). The optional filtering clause adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'describe_signal' (detailed inspection vs. enumeration) or 'waveform_add_signals'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_signal' or 'get_signal_value'. While the Args section explains parameter syntax, there is no 'when-to-use' or workflow guidance (e.g., 'use this first to discover signals before inspecting values').

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