interactive_openroad_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that by stating modifying commands are blocked. It also names the sibling for mutable operations, adding context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 focused sentences: first defines the tool and lists example commands, second provides usage boundaries and alternative. No extraneous information; every word adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema (context indicates present) and 3 parameters, yet the description omits output semantics and parameter details. While purpose and usage are clear, the lack of parameter documentation leaves the description incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional inference.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (command, session_id, timeout_ms) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the schema types.

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 read-only OpenROAD commands, lists examples (report_*, get_*, check_*, sta, help), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool interactive_openroad_exec for mutable commands. This leaves no ambiguity about purpose.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (for querying design state, generating reports, inspecting timing) and when not to (commands that modify design state), directing to the alternative sibling. This provides complete guidance.

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