interactive_openroad_exec

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

Annotations already indicate destructive hint. The description adds context by specifying state-modifying nature, listing command types (set_*, create_*, etc.) and use cases (loading designs, placement/routing), enhancing transparency.

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 concise sentences with effective front-loading: the first states the core function, the second gives usage context and alternative tool. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite good purpose and usage guidelines, the description lacks parameter explanations and does not cover session management or timeout behavior. With three parameters and no schema description, the tool is incompletely documented for correct invocation.

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?

The description provides no information about the three parameters (command, session_id, timeout_ms). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 tool executes state-modifying OpenROAD commands and lists examples, distinguishing it from the sibling query tool by explicitly excluding read-only commands.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (state-modifying commands) and when not (read-only commands), directing to interactive_openroad_query as the alternative.

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