verilator_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic compile action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting output directory), resource usage, or authentication needs, which are important for such a tool.

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, clear sentence. While it is appropriately concise, it could include more useful context without becoming overly verbose, so it is not a 5.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, success/failure behavior, or prerequisites. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description completeness, which is lacking.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to any parameter, but it does not need to since the schema describes all parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('compile'), the resource ('Verilog/SystemVerilog design files'), the output ('to C++'), and the tool ('using Verilator'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verilator_simulate' and 'verilator_testbenchgenerator', which have different purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., verilator_simulate for simulation, verilator_testbenchgenerator for testbenches). It lacks explicit 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.