gds_stream_out

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals the underlying mechanism (headless KLayout), the technology dependency (Nangate45 LEFs), and the limitation of abstract footprints vs. full transistor GDS. It does not explicitly mention output file creation, but that is implied by the output path parameter.

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 two sentences, each with a clear purpose: the first states the function and method, the second states the use case and limitation. It is succinct and free of redundant information.

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 straightforward conversion tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it does it, what it produces, and its limitations. It does not mention error handling or return values, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this sufficient.

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 schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (cwd, def_file, gds_file), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: streaming a DEF layout to GDSII via headless KLayout with Nangate45 LEFs. It also distinguishes its intended use (DRC input, handoff previews) from tapeout signoff, making its role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('produce DRC input or handoff previews') and gives a critical caveat ('not tapeout signoff' and 'full transistor GDS needs the PDK'). This provides practical guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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