get_module_card

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is free; the description instead adds the non-obvious caveat that clock/reset candidates are heuristic name matches rather than resolved nets. It also signals determinism and bounded/truncated RAM-ROM detail, but says nothing about prerequisites (does the design need to be loaded/elaborated first?) or behavior when the module name is unknown.

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?

Front-loaded with the core noun phrase, then a dense inventory of returned fields, then the sibling routing, then the trust caveat. There is no filler sentence; every clause carries information the agent needs given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its words enumerating return contents and marks the heuristic parts, which is the main completeness burden here. Minor gaps remain: it does not say the design must be loaded first, nor what happens for an unresolvable module name.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Elaborated module/model name, not an instance path.', which is the key disambiguation. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Deterministic module summary') and then enumerates exactly what the card contains: ports, instance counts by model, sequential cell/register-bit counts, RAM/ROM details, and source ref. It also names the sibling it is not ('use get_stats for counts below an instance'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this for one model's interface; use get_stats for counts below an instance' gives both the selecting condition and the explicit alternative. The additional warning that clock/reset candidates are name-based guesses ('verify before relying on them') tells the agent how far to trust the output, which is a usage constraint in itself.

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