get_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is 'warm-only' and what it returns (enum/typedef states, parameters). However, the phrasing 'Source-level INTENT a netlist erases in lowering' is confusing and lacks clarity on side effects, permissions, or error behavior. More transparency on conditions and constraints would improve this.

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 reasonably concise given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with usage details. Some phrases are dense (e.g., 'Source-level INTENT a netlist erases in lowering') which could be streamlined, but overall no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description must explain return values. It describes that the tool returns enum/typedef state names and encodings, and symbolic parameter expressions. It also mentions error handling (note when intent layer not loaded). While not exhaustive about structure, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's output.

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 the description must compensate. It explains the ref parameter with examples of acceptable formats (hierarchical path, package member, instance path) and lists valid values for want ('auto', 'type', 'fsm_states', 'parameters'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 that the tool retrieves source-level intent (type/declaration info) from a netlist, specifying it operates on SystemVerilog types and parameters rather than flattened gates. It provides concrete examples of ref and want, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_source.

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 tells when to use this tool: when the answer is in SystemVerilog type/declaration, not flattened gates. Also provides fallback guidance: if intent layer not loaded, fall back to get_source. This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives.

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