yosys_check_latch

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.