openroad_sta

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core behavior—running OpenSTA and reporting timing metrics—but does not mention side effects, whether it is strictly read-only, how constraints are derived when sdc_file is absent, or the exact form of the report. This is adequate but leaves meaningful 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the tool's purpose, input phase, engine, and key outputs into a compact form that is easy to parse quickly.

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 covers the essential purpose and outputs, but given no annotations and no output schema, it should provide a bit more context. Notably absent is guidance on how sdc_file and clock_period_ns interact, whether the tool writes any files, and what the returned report looks like. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall invocation context is only minimally complete.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description repeats the placed/routed DEF detail already present in the def_file schema description and adds no new meaning for top_module, sdc_file, clock_period_ns, cwd, or timeout_ms. It neither harms nor meaningfully enhances parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Performs'), resource ('placed or routed DEF files'), and engine ('OpenSTA'), and lists concrete outputs (WNS, TNS, critical paths). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling flow tools like openroad_place, openroad_route, and openroad_floorplan.

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 establishes the correct context: this tool is for static timing analysis on placed or routed DEF files, implying it is used after placement/routing rather than at floorplan time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the usage context is clear.

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