get_drivers

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

No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It discloses limit behavior (capped at 50, max 200, truncated flag, no cursor) and the types of drivers returned. However, it does not mention read-only nature, permission requirements, or potential side effects.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence packs a lot of specificity, but the phrasing is slightly fragmented ('What drives this term/net'). No wasted words; front-loads the main purpose.

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 complexity (2 params, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description explains the driver types and limit behavior but lacks detail on the output structure (e.g., list format) and exact meaning of `path`. Some gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the `limit` parameter (default 50, max 200) but does not provide details about the `path` parameter beyond implying it is the term or net. Some value added but incomplete for both parameters.

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 returns drivers for a term/net, specifying leaf drivers (FF/gate instances with pin, model, source ref) and top-level ports. It distinguishes from siblings like `get_loads` (loads). The verb is implied but the resource and scope are specific.

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 implies usage for obtaining drivers, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use vs alternatives like `get_loads` or `get_source`. No exclusions or context for choosing this tool.

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