get_utilization

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the data stage (after place & route plus synthesis estimates) and the hierarchy=true behavior with total(self) values. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tight sentences front-load the output scope (core and periphery after P&R, synthesis estimates) before the optional hierarchy behavior. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only utilization query and covers output categories and hierarchy behavior. However, it omits the semantics of max_depth, any return format, and what 'synthesis estimates' means relative to the post-place-and-route numbers—gaps made more significant by the absence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains hierarchy=true and its breakdown semantics, and project is inferable from context, but max_depth is entirely unexplained—including how it relates to hierarchy—leaving an agent to guess its role.

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 identifies the tool as reporting resource utilization for a project, enumerating core resources (XLRs, memory, DSP, I/O, clocks), periphery, and synthesis estimates after place & route. It is specific enough to be distinguished from timing, job, and report siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name a differentiating sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool when you need placed-and-routed utilization or synthesis estimates, and use hierarchy=true for a per-module breakdown. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_device_resources, or when not to use it.

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