yosys_toolchain_info

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.