Advance an active Vivado simulation by a specified number of delta cycles to inspect signal updates and debug RTL behavior.
Step simulation by delta cycles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | default: 1 |
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. It says the tool steps the simulation but does not disclose whether this mutates simulation state, requires an active session, what it returns, or how 'delta cycles' relates to simulation time.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is as concise as possible for the information it conveys.
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 one-parameter simulation-control tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it omits prerequisites, return behavior, and sibling differentiation that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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% for the single 'count' parameter, so the schema already documents its type and default. The description implies cycle count via 'delta cycles' but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Step simulation by delta cycles.' This is more precise than a tautology, but it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling 'run_simulation' or clarify what a 'delta cycle' means in this environment.
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 tool instead of the closely related 'run_simulation' or 'launch_simulation' siblings. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.