Identify cross-clock timing paths and classify them as timed, asynchronous, or unconstrained to diagnose clock-domain crossing issues in Vivado designs.
Run report_clock_interaction to find cross-clock paths (timed/async/unconstrained).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden. It implies a read-only report and hints at output categories (timed/async/unconstrained), but says nothing about required session/design state, whether it mutates anything, or cost/runtime.
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 no waste. Slightly redundant in restating the tool name as an imperative, but 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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back; the parenthetical categories help, but prerequisites for a synthesis/timing report and the shape of the result are left unspecified.
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?
The tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 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?
The description pairs a specific verb (report) with the resource (clock interaction) and states the outcome: finding cross-clock paths. It is distinguishable from get_clocks and get_timing_paths, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this rather than get_timing_paths or get_clocks, and no stated prerequisites (an open, synthesized/implemented design). The agent must infer the timing-analysis context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.