get_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: "Search" implies a read but does not state read-only semantics, what scope is searched (current design? hierarchy depth?), whether results are capped, or what a match looks like. Only the schema's default limit hints at result size.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding — the verb and the discriminator (pattern) come first. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about the return shape, whether the search is hierarchical, or which design/session the search applies to. An agent could invoke it correctly but cannot predict whether it will see flat top-level cells or a full hierarchy.

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%, with both properties documented (limit: max results, default 100; pattern: wildcard, default '*'), so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds only the redundant word "pattern" and nothing about wildcard syntax or limit interaction, which is the expected baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("cells/instances") with the key qualifier "by pattern", so the agent knows this is a pattern-based lookup rather than an enumeration. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby siblings such as list_bd_cells, get_ports, or get_nets, and "instances" is ambiguous between netlist cells and block-design cells.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_bd_cells, get_design_hierarchy, get_ports, or get_nets, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the word "pattern", which the agent must infer means glob-style filtering against a netlist.

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