check_bitstream_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says the tool 'aggregate[s]' messages. It does not clarify whether this is read-only, whether it waits for running jobs, whether a project/session must be active, or how the READY/WARN/BLOCK decisions are made. 'Aggregate' hints at non-mutating behavior, but that is not explicit.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the output states. Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundant restatement 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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is too thin for an agent to use the tool correctly in context. It does not explain whether the tool runs checks or reads existing results, what constitutes a WARN versus BLOCK threshold, or how the timeout parameter affects the call. The optional timeout and lack of required parameters reduce risk, but the semantic gaps remain significant.

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 input schema has one optional parameter, timeout_s, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter name suggests seconds and optionality, but the description adds no meaning about defaults, units, or behavior when omitted.

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 action—aggregating timing, DRC, and critical messages—and names the resulting statuses READY/WARN/BLOCK, so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like run_pre_hw_signoff or get_timing_summary, but the aggregate-readiness focus provides reasonable clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as run_pre_hw_signoff, diagnose_run_failure, or get_timing_summary. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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