load_systemverilog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that anonymous lowered objects are addressable by '#<id>' and that 'intent=True' retains a link for 'get_intent'. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or error behaviors, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, consisting of three sentences that front-load the main action and provide key details. There is no redundant information.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the purpose of the 'keep_assigns' parameter. The tool feels under-documented for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description partially adds meaning: it explains that 'top' is optional, 'files' and 'flist' can be used together, and 'intent' controls a link. However, it does not explain the 'keep_assigns' parameter, which is critical for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 elaborates SystemVerilog using files or flist with an optional top module. It uses a specific verb ('Elaborate') and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'load_verilog' (different language) and 'load_snapshot' (loading pre-compiled).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'load_verilog' or 'load_liberty'. It lacks prerequisites, context of use, or exclusions.

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