EDA Tools MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation (implied by 'Read') and specifies the return content (reports for PPA metrics, timing, etc.), but does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data format details. It adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return scope. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and return content but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and output structure, which are important for a read tool in a technical context like OpenLane analysis.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'report_type') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'all reports or specific category', which aligns with the schema's default behavior, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('OpenLane report files'), specifying the purpose as retrieving reports for LLM analysis. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_openlane' or 'simulate_verilog' by focusing on reading existing reports rather than executing processes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read-like tools.

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 by mentioning 'Returns all reports or specific category', suggesting it can be used for broad or targeted analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'view_gds' or 'view_waveform', and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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