List Measures

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data; no contradiction exists. The description itself adds no behavioral context at all — no scoping, no ordering, no indication of what happens with an empty or missing measurement set — so it earns no credit above the annotation baseline.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which suits a simple list tool. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise, and the stray doubled backticks around '.meas' are formatting noise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return shape, but it only says 'names' without conveying ordering, count, or behavior when no .meas directives exist. Combined with the undocumented required log_path and zero usage routing, the definition is too thin for an agent to call confidently.

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 50% schema coverage, the required log_path parameter has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate by explaining what log_path should point to (raw output? netlist log?) or what a workspace_root override changes. The one documented parameter (workspace_root) is the optional one, leaving the mandatory parameter entirely unexplained.

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 names a verb ('List') and a resource ('.meas' measurement directive names), so the basic action is recoverable. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like read_measures or export_measures_csv, and '.meas' is unexplained jargon that a non-expert agent may not map to measurement directives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that a log_path pointing at a completed simulation log is required), and no routing to read_measures for values or export_measures_csv for export. The agent must infer all selection logic from the tool name alone.

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