List cells in the current Vivado block design and apply an optional wildcard filter to inspect or target design cells.
List cells in the current block design (optionally filtered).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Wildcard pattern, default '*' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not that it is a read-only operation, not that it requires an open block design, and not what happens if no BD is open. Only the optional filtering hint adds context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the missing prerequisite and return-info detail.
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 simple zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the core intent is conveyed. However, the missing prerequisite state (open block design) and absence of any note about what the listing contains leave 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 parameter is fully documented as a wildcard pattern defaulting to '*'. The description's '(optionally filtered)' merely restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('cells in the current block design') with scope narrowed to the block design, which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_cells. It does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify the distinction beyond the 'bd' qualifier.
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 indication of when to use this versus get_cells or other BD tools, and no stated prerequisite such as an open block design or project. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.