get_timing_paths

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, yet it only restates the action and resource. It does not say whether the tool reads an existing report, runs a new analysis, can return both setup and hold paths, or has any side effects or timeout implications.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns every word, though the terseness is a tradeoff against completeness rather than a structural flaw.

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?

With three unannotated parameters, no parameter descriptions, and a nontrivial timing-path interpretation task, the definition supplies only the core purpose. An agent would not know valid delay_type values, the effect of max_paths, or timeout semantics, so the description is not complete enough for reliable 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 0%, so the description needed to clarify max_paths, timeout_s, and delay_type. It only hints that 'setup or hold' relates to the kind of path, leaving delay_type values and the behavior of the other two parameters underspecified.

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 concrete resource ('worst setup or hold timing paths') and a specific verb ('Parse'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_timing_summary that imply a summary rather than path-level details. It does not explicitly contrast any sibling, so it just misses a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as analyze_timing_closure, check_timing_constraints, or get_timing_summary. The timing context is implied, but prerequistes and alternatives are left entirely unaddressed.

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