auto_connect_axi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: it inserts an AXI interconnect and adds clock/reset hookups, which is real context beyond the name. It does not say whether existing connections are overwritten, what happens on failure, or whether a block design must be open, which matters for a design-mutating operation.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the effect plus its side effects are front-loaded. Leading with the underlying Tcl invocation rather than the outcome is slightly less agent-friendly, but it is efficient overall.

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?

For a three-parameter, design-mutating tool with a nested options object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say something about the result (whether the created interconnect is returned or named) and about preconditions. It covers the core action and side effects but leaves those gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents master, slave, and the options key/value object. The description reinforces the master/slave roles but adds nothing about the options object, such as which -config keys are meaningful or what the defaults are.

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 action (wire an AXI master to a slave) and the mechanism (apply_bd_automation with the axi4 rule), so the effect is unambiguous. It does not name the closely related siblings connect_bd_intf_net or connect_bd_net, so the agent must infer the distinction between automated AXI connection and a raw pin-to-pin connection.

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 only implied: the tool is for AXI master/slave pairs and does the interconnect plus clock/reset work automatically. There is no explicit 'use this instead of connect_bd_intf_net when…' guidance, no stated preconditions (e.g. both IP must already be in the block design), and no when-not case such as already-connected interfaces.

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