get_utilization

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet 'Parsed only by default' is unexplained — the agent cannot tell if this returns parsed numbers instead of a raw report, whether raw text is ever available, or whether results are cached/stale. It also omits the crucial precondition that utilization data only exists after synthesis or implementation.

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?

At two short fragments it is certainly compact and the metric list is front-loaded, but the second fragment is cryptic rather than economical. Brevity here comes at the cost of understanding, not from tight editing.

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?

A four-parameter reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain return shape (percent vs. absolute counts), preconditions, and the detail_level behavior. None of that is present, so the definition is under-specified for the complexity of the 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 description coverage is 75% and three of four parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about any parameter, and notably leaves the undescribed 'detail_level' enum (summary/standard/full) entirely unexplained, which is the parameter most likely to change results.

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 names the resource explicitly ('Resource utilization') and enumerates the metrics (LUT/FF/BRAM/DSP/IO), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like report_power or report_qor_assessment. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+object, and the trailing 'Parsed only by default' muddies rather than clarifies what the tool actually returns.

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 call this versus alternatives such as report_qor_assessment, report_power, or get_design_hierarchy, and no prerequisites (e.g., design must be synthesized/implemented). 'Parsed only by default' hints at a mode distinction but never says what the other mode is or when to ask for it.

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