cocotb_toolchain_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Returns' implies a read-only query with no side effects, which is reasonably transparent for a zero-parameter info tool. However, it does not explicitly state whether any environment setup or simulator connection is required, or how failures are reported.

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 that states the exact return value categories with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and no output schema, and the complexity is low. The description fully covers what the tool returns (runtime environment plus three version types), which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result at a high level.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is required; the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource: active container/host runtime info and versions of Cocotb, Python, and simulator. It immediately identifies this as an info/query tool, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that run tests, list tests, or generate runners.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving environment/version details, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent can infer the use case from the return value description, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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