run_openlane

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical time constraint ('can take up to 10 minutes'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like error handling, resource requirements, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a complex execution tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds crucial behavioral context (time constraint). Every element earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 complex 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and time constraint but lacks information about what happens after execution, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like 'view_gds' for results.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating 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 specific action ('Run complete ASIC design flow') and resource ('using OpenLane'), with precise scope ('RTL to GDSII'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'synthesize_verilog' (partial flow) and 'read_openlane_reports' (analysis only).

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 for full ASIC implementation from RTL, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'synthesize_verilog' for partial flow or 'simulate_verilog' for verification. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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