EDA Tools MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what the simulation does (e.g., runs tests, generates waveforms), potential outputs, error handling, or performance considerations like runtime or resource usage. The mention of 'Icarus Verilog' hints at the simulator but doesn't explain its implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the tool name, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a simulation tool. It doesn't explain what the simulation returns (e.g., success/failure, waveforms, logs) or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle errors. More context is needed for effective use.

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 ('verilog_code' and 'testbench_code') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Simulate') and target ('Verilog code'), and specifies the tool used ('Icarus Verilog'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'synthesize_verilog' by focusing on simulation rather than synthesis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'view_waveform' which might display simulation results.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing both design and testbench code), nor does it clarify relationships with siblings like 'view_waveform' for analyzing simulation outputs. The description assumes context without explicit usage instructions.

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