rtl_check_assignments

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only audit by using 'Audits' and specifies the exact violation categories, but it does not state whether files are modified, what side effects occur, or how violations are reported.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately specifies the exact checks performed. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what an audit result looks like. It explains what is audited but not how violations are returned (e.g., exit code, report, or structured list). It is adequate for a simple static-analysis tool but leaves a notable gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of all parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the three parameters adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('Audits') and a specific resource ('Verilog/SystemVerilog source files'), and further narrows the scope to 'assignment discipline violations.' It clearly explains what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rtl_check_widths.

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 phrase 'specifically for assignment discipline violations' gives clear context for when to use this tool over more general or width-focused checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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