Launch Xilinx xsim simulations in behavioral, post-synthesis, or post-implementation modes to verify RTL and gate-level designs.
Launch xsim in behavioral/post-synth/post-impl mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Simulation mode (default: behavioral) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does 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 largely fails it. It does not say whether launching creates persistent state, what happens if a simulation is already open, whether it requires a prior synthesis/implementation run for post-synth/post-impl modes, or what it returns.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it is terseness rather than informative compression.
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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain state, prerequisites, and result, and it says none of that. For a stateful launch operation in a crowded simulation-tool family, this leaves real 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% and the single 'mode' parameter has an enum plus a documented default, so the schema does the work. The description's shorthand 'behavioral/post-synth/post-impl' is a coarser restatement of the five enum values and adds no meaning beyond them.
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 ('Launch') and resource ('xsim') plus the mode dimension, so the agent knows this starts a simulator. It does not differentiate from close-by siblings such as run_simulation, restart_simulation, or run_simulation, leaving the boundary between 'launch' and 'run' to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (elaborated design, synthesized netlist for post-synth modes), and no mention of alternatives like run_simulation or restart_simulation. The only usage hint is the implicit default mode carried by the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.