load_verilog

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that gate netlists carry no source info (so get_source/get_intent cannot answer) and explains the allow_unknown_designs flag effect. But it does not mention if loading is cumulative, idempotent, or what happens on error.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: main action, pairing/flag behavior, and a limitation. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main use case and a key limitation. However, it lacks details on keep_assigns behavior, cumulative loading, and error handling, leaving moderate gaps for a loading tool.

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 should document parameters. It only explains allow_unknown_designs. The files parameter is implied but not explicitly described; keep_assigns is entirely omitted. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 it loads 'gate-level/structural Verilog netlists', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like load_systemverilog by specifying 'structural' and mentioning pairing with load_liberty/load_primitives, which are also siblings.

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?

Provides clear context: pair with load_liberty or load_primitives, and describes allow_unknown_designs behavior. However, does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for behavioral code) or name alternatives beyond the pairing siblings.

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