get_drivers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the return shape (leaf FF/gate instances with pin, model, source ref; top-level ports), traversal behavior (lowered assign glue is traversed, not reported), edge-case encoding (constant 0/1/X/Z, bus bit entries), and pagination semantics (limit cap, truncated flag, no cursor). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Well front-loaded — purpose first, then alternative routing, then return/pagination details. Dense but every sentence carries information, particularly the encoding details that would otherwise be undiscoverable without an output schema; slightly verbose but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden itself, and it does: it enumerates driver kinds, port endpoints, constant/bit encodings, and truncation signaling. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that truncation is signaled via a `truncated` flag, that there is no cursor, and that raising `limit` is the only way to see more. That is meaningful operational semantics not present in the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the immediate upstream endpoints that drive a term or net across hierarchy'), scoping it to direct/leaf drivers. It names the two neighboring tools it is not (get_loads for downstream, trace_cone for transitive fanin), so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 says 'Use this for direct sources' and names both alternatives with the condition that selects each: get_loads for downstream readers, trace_cone for transitive combinational fanin. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both fully specified.

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