rtl_check_widths

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (analyzing bitwidths and detecting mismatch types), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what kind of report it produces, whether it requires compilation/elaboration, or how it handles multiple files and hierarchy.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Performs semantic bitwidth analysis') and then specifies the concrete behavior. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the agent can expect from invoking this tool. It does not mention return values, formatting of diagnostics, exit behavior, or prerequisites such as a working toolchain or required top-module specification. The one-line description is not sufficient for a tool with hierarchical analysis dependencies.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (cwd, top_module, verilog_sources). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the load.

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 ('Performs semantic bitwidth analysis') and names a concrete resource (Verilog/SystemVerilog designs) and defines the exact detection scope (implicit truncation and bit expansion mismatches). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rtl_check_assignments or rtl_review, which target different analysis concerns.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool, leaving the selection entirely to inference from the name and one-line purpose.

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