verilog_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. The verb 'Returns' makes the non-mutating, read-only nature clear, and 'active container or host' reveals that results depend on where execution occurs. It does not mention failure modes or output format, but for a no-argument query tool this is minor.

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?

A single sentence that states exactly what is returned and names all four covered tools. There is no repetition, filler, or information already present in the schema.

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 zero-parameter inspection tool, the description is largely complete: it names the environment dimension (container/host) and the exact tool versions covered. It could optionally specify the output shape, but with no output schema and no parameters, this is not a critical 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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description need not explain parameter meaning. It adds value by enumerating the exact information returned: iverilog, verilator, verible, and sv2v versions, plus runtime info.

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 and resource ('Returns active container or host execution runtime info and versions of ...') and is clearly distinct from the sibling action tools verilog_lint, verilog_compile, and verilog_simulate. An agent can immediately identify this as the inspection/query tool.

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 intended use is implied: call this when execution environment details or toolchain version information is needed before running lint/compile/simulate actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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