runVerificationPlan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions simulation and reuse but does not detail the decision logic (when does it run vs reuse?), side effects (e.g., new run creation), error conditions, or authentication needs. The assertion types are well-described, but the overall behavioral model is incomplete.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear introductory sentence and a structured bullet list for assertion types. It is front-loaded and avoids repetition. A minor improvement could be to also list or reference the other parameters, but overall it is efficient.

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 high complexity (12 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions or annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers assertions in depth but neglects most other parameters and does not mention the return format despite an output schema existing. The tool's full behavior is not adequately described for an AI agent to use it reliably.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'assertions' parameter structure and types but completely ignores the other 11 parameters such as netlist_path, run_id, measurements, timeout_seconds, etc. This leaves a major gap for the agent to understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 tool combines running a simulation (or reusing a previous run) with evaluating assertion checks in one call. It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('verification plan'), and the context of sibling tools (especially runSimulation and individual get* tools) helps distinguish its purpose. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 explains that the tool runs simulation or reuses a run and evaluates assertions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over separate steps (like runSimulation then individual measurement tools) or mention prerequisites. The 'or reuse a run' option is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.