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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is fast, performs elaboration, and reports specific issue categories with exact source lines. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe failure/error behavior, but the 'checking' framing implies analysis rather than mutation.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and then specifies the concrete outputs. There is no filler, repetition, or content that merely restates 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?

The description tells an agent what the tool checks and that results include exact source lines, but there is no output schema and no mention of output format, return behavior, or error semantics. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive after invocation.

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 four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as how verilog_sources or top_module are used or how timeout_ms affects execution. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Performs fast RTL elaboration and latch checking') and enumerates exactly what it detects: inferred transparent latches, combinational loops, and multiple drivers with exact source lines. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like yosys_synthesize and yosys_hierarchy.

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 context is clear: this tool is for latch checking and RTL elaboration, so an agent can infer it should be used when latch-related issues need identification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose and sibling names make the intended use reasonably obvious.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the read-only inspection behavior and the specific flagging function, which is helpful. However, it omits what the output looks like, whether anything is written, and what happens beyond flagging unresolved blackboxes.

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 verb and resource and compresses the key behavior into an efficient dependent clause. There is no filler or redundant restating 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?

For a four-parameter inspection tool with a fully documented schema, the description plus schema covers the basic invocation needs. But with no output schema and no annotations, return format, error behavior, and edge cases such as what exactly counts as a missing blackbox are left unspecified.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little parameter-level semantics beyond the implicit fact that verilog_sources and top_module are the inputs to the hierarchy inspection. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Inspects') and resource ('module hierarchy'), and goes on to name two concrete outcomes: detecting instantiated submodules and flagging missing/unresolved blackboxes. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from the synthesis and toolchain-info siblings.

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 tool's inspection focus makes its usage reasonably clear, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus yosys_synthesize or yosys_check_latch. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns structured cell counts and warnings and maps to specific targets, but it does not mention side effects such as writing an output netlist, modifying files in cwd, potential long runtime, or failure behavior. These gaps matter for a synthesis tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 densely informative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, mentions the key target variants, and ends with the expected output. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

Given a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful summary but omits important operational context such as whether output_netlist is actually written, what happens with flatten, or how synthesis results are returned beyond 'cell counts and warnings.' It is adequate for a high-level agent decision but not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about targets and outputs but does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like verilog_sources, top_module, cwd, flatten, timeout_ms, or output_netlist. It does not compensate for or extend the schema details.

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 a specific action ('Synthesizes a Verilog/SystemVerilog design using Yosys') and identifies the resource and output ('returns structured cell counts and warnings'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming synthesis, target mappings, and result data, distinguishing it from latch checking, hierarchy analysis, and toolchain 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yosys_hierarchy or yosys_check_latch. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternative tools. The sibling context makes the purpose inferable, but the description itself carries no usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames the tool as a read-only information call ('Returns ... information'), and adds the active container/host context. It does not detail failure modes or output shape, but the read-only nature is evident for a zero-parameter info tool.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and result. No filler 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?

Given this is a zero-parameter info tool, the description covers the essential context. It does not provide an explicit return schema, but the phrase 'runtime and version information' gives the agent enough to interpret the result. An explicit note about when Yosys might be unavailable would make it fully complete.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter-level guidance is unnecessary; the baseline is 4. The description still adds meaning by defining exactly what kind of information the call returns.

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') with a clear resource ('runtime and version information for the Yosys synthesis engine'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that synthesize or check hierarchy/latches.

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 environment/version inspection tool, but it never explicitly states when to use it instead of yosys_synthesize, yosys_check_latch, or yosys_hierarchy. No exclusions or trigger conditions are given, so usage must be inferred.

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