rtl_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the analysis approach (AST-backed, static, semantic audit) and the deliverable (0–100 score with fix suggestions), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations, behavior on parse errors, or confirm the tool is read-only/non-destructive, which an agent typically benefits from knowing.

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 tool's main purpose and enumerates the key evaluation areas and output. It is dense but not bloated; every major element earns its place, though the long list of checks makes it slightly heavy to parse at a glance.

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 moderately complex tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the general nature of the output. It lacks details on how ruleset severity levels affect the review, interpretation of the quality score, or any prerequisites for source files, leaving some operational context unexplored.

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 already documents all five parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not elevate it.

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 the tool performs a comprehensive AST-backed static RTL review and semantic audit on Verilog/SystemVerilog designs, listing specific checks (assignment discipline, reset polarity, bitwidths, undriven nets) and an output quality score. This distinguishes it from the narrower sibling tools rtl_check_assignments and rtl_check_widths, which focus on individual aspects.

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 this is the full, consolidated review tool, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling tools or when a targeted check would be more appropriate. There is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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