gds_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is headless, pure introspection, and requires no PDK, implying read-only behavior. It does not explicitly state that it never modifies the file, but 'pure introspection' strongly conveys this.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action and output content, the second clarifies use case and limitations.

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 read-only metadata tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the input format, the kind of information returned, and the use case. It does not describe return formatting, but that is not essential given the explicit metadata list.

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 already describes both parameters (gds_file as path to layout file, cwd as optional working directory) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?

Description clearly states the tool reads GDSII/OASIS layout metadata and lists the specific metadata types (cells, top cells, bounding boxes, per-layer shape counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing pure introspection and no PDK requirement.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need to know what is inside a layout file,' providing clear guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the pure-introspection framing makes the appropriate use case evident.

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