yosys_hierarchy

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.