openroad_toolchain_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only, side-effect-free operation by saying 'Returns ... information'. It also specifies the scope of what is returned, which is sufficient for a simple info tool, though it does not detail output structure or error behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and clearly lists the information domains. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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, optional-parameter info tool, the description provides enough context: it states what is returned and for which components. There is no output schema, so a slightly more explicit note about the exact return shape would improve completeness, but the current description is adequate for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 only parameter, cwd, is already fully described in the schema as 'Optional workspace directory', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how cwd affects the returned information, but the schema already provides adequate semantics for this optional parameter.

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 ('Returns') and names the exact resource: runtime and version information for OpenROAD, OpenSTA, and supported PDKs. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling execution tools like openroad_pnr and openroad_sta, which perform operations rather than reporting environment info.

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 checking the active toolchain environment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. An agent can infer usage from the info-returning nature, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion.

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