xdc_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool performs static analysis without requiring Vivado, lists the exact error codes checked, and describes the auto-discovery behavior when xdc_paths is omitted. This gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior and non-destructive nature.

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 moderately sized but well-structured, with a clear intro, a useful bullet list of detectable errors, and an Args section. Each line contributes value, for example the error list helps the agent understand capabilities. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not wasteful.

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 only two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides complete context: the tool's purpose, when to use it, the parameters' behavior, and the expected error types. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides only names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description's Args section fully compensates by explaining xdc_paths and session_id in detail, including the default auto-grab behavior and when session_id is used. This provides complete parameter semantics beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose as a static checker for XDC constraint files, listing the specific error patterns it detects. This distinguishes it from synthesis, implementation, and other sibling tools. The mention of being pure Python and not relying on Vivado synthesis further clarifies its scope.

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 recommends running this tool before synthesis to catch common errors and avoid the 30+ second synthesis wait, providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the timing and benefit are well communicated.

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