get_utilization_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it runs a specific TCL command, extracts rows from multiple tables, and adds [CRITICAL]/[WARN] highlighting based on thresholds. It also explains the effect of the detail flag. This goes beyond a simple 'get report' statement, though it doesn't cover error conditions or side effects, which are minimal for a read-only report 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with a clear summary sentence. It uses bullet points for typical uses and a dedicated Args section, making it scannable. Some redundancy with the schema exists in the Args block, but it avoids unnecessary jargon or bloat.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main use cases, the detail flag behavior, and the highlighting logic. Among many sibling report tools, it clearly differentiates itself by focusing on resource utilization and typical scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a thorough explanation of the 'detail' parameter (appending BRAM detail section, effects on output format, default false). However, 'session_id' is only described as '目标会话 ID' (target session ID), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's name and default. Only one of the two parameters gains meaningful context.

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 states a specific verb '获取' (get) and a clear resource scope: LUT/FF/BRAM/DSP/IO utilization. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools like get_timing_report and get_io_report by focusing on resource utilization and explicitly mentions it executes 'report_utilization -return_string'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 '典型用途' (typical uses) section provides concrete scenarios: post-synthesis resource checks, timing congestion diagnosis, and BRAM detail inspection. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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