get_compile_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not explain whether a project or session must be active, what fileset selection means, or how timeout_s affects the call. The behavioral surface is largely underspecified.

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, economical sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying usage and parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the tool has two undocumented optional parameters and no guidance on session/project prerequisites or selection between related tools. For an agent to invoke this correctly, more context about fileset and timeout behavior is needed.

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 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'fileset' and 'timeout_s' provide minimal hints from their names, but the description adds no meaning about valid values, defaults, optionality behavior, or how they affect the compile order inspection.

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 identifies the tool as inspecting Vivado compile order and its related issues (missing files, duplicates, unknown file types), which is specific and distinct from write-oriented siblings like update_project_compile_order. It could name an alternative to further differentiate, but the verb and resource are clear.

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 use this tool versus siblings such as list_fileset_files or update_project_compile_order. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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