openroad_pnr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a multi-stage automated flow, that it runs on OpenROAD, and that it returns area, utilization, wirelength, and timing slack metrics. It also implies mutation/creation of files, but does not mention whether inputs are modified, how long it can take, or whether it writes intermediate files beyond the optional DEF. It is fairly transparent but could disclose time cost and side effects more explicitly.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence that lists the stages, the input type, the tool, and the outputs. It earns its place with useful metrics. Minor issue: it crams many stages into a parenthetical, which could be slightly easier to parse, but overall it's 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?

For a complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a strong high-level picture, names required inputs (gate-level netlist, top module) implicitly, and lists return metrics. It lacks details on side effects, runtime expectations, and whether it uses SDC or clock period, but the schema fills parameter gaps and the sibling list provides alternative-stage context. Mostly complete, with minor gaps.

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 does not add semantics beyond the schema because it only summarizes the overall flow and outputs, not the individual parameters like netlist_file, top_module, or core_utilization. The schema already documents each parameter well.

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 is a specific verb+resource statement: it performs end-to-end automated digital ASIC physical design (floorplanning, placement, routing, and static timing analysis) on a gate-level netlist using OpenROAD, and names the exact metrics returned (area, utilization, wirelength, timing slack). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which each handle a narrower stage (floorplan, place, route, sta).

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 implies the tool is for full physical design flow and returns metrics, and the sibling list makes alternatives explicit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this end-to-end tool versus calling the individual stages (openroad_floorplan/openroad_place/openroad_route/openroad_sta). The guidance is clear contextually but lacks a direct 'use this instead of...' statement.

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