load_vhdl

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds real value beyond them: beta status, an unsupported-construct failure mode, the case where elaboration yields top=null, and the fact that SystemVerilog intent recovery and guaranteed source ranges are unavailable. It does not describe permissions or what session state is replaced on re-load.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the primary action and its sequencing constraint come first, caveats last. A few fragments read like release notes rather than tool guidance, which slightly dilutes focus.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state the return shape (top summary, language, beta status) and covers the main failure modes for a mutating loader. It is close to complete, though it omits how re-loading affects an already-populated session.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented ('file' path, 'top' omit-to-infer). The description only marginally extends this via 'one call per file' and the note that top can come back null for package-only files, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (load VHDL into the active session) and immediately scopes it (beta, restricted two-state RTL subset), which cleanly distinguishes it from load_verilog, load_systemverilog and load_liberty 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?

Gives explicit sequencing rules ('Load dependency/package files first, one call per file, then the top file') and names the follow-up queries to run on the elaborated design (hierarchy, cards, connectivity). It does not state when to prefer a different loader or what to do when the language is not VHDL, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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