openroad_floorplan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the main side effect—generating a floorplan DEF file via OpenROAD—but does not disclose overwrite behavior for an existing output_def, execution characteristics, or failure modes. This is adequate but has clear transparency gaps.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler; the primary action and output artifact are front-loaded. Every phrase carries 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?

The description is sufficient for a simple floorplan initialization step, but with no output schema or annotations it leaves out useful operational context: whether existing DEF files are overwritten, what the tool returns on success, and how this step sequences into the sibling P&R tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only conceptual grouping ('core/die sizing', 'I/O pin placement') that maps loosely to die_width, die_height, and core_margin, but no new parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Initializes') and a concrete resource: ASIC floorplan boundaries, core/die sizing, and I/O pin placement. It also names the deliverable, a floorplan DEF file, which separates it from the place/route/STA sibling tools even without naming them explicitly.

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 never states when to run this tool versus openroad_place, openroad_route, or openroad_pnr. It implies the floorplan step from the 'floorplan' terminology and DEF output, but leaves workflow ordering and alternative selection to inference.

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