list_fileset_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'List' and the target 'files referenced by a Vivado fileset,' but does not explain whether an active session or open project is required, whether the fileset must exist, or how errors are surfaced.

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. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation.

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?

Although an output schema exists and may describe return values, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It lacks prerequisites, fileset value semantics, timeout parameter meaning, and any context about when this listing is appropriate, which is especially problematic with zero schema documentation and no annotations.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds only the concept of a 'Vivado fileset' to the 'fileset' parameter, but provides no meaning for 'timeout_s' and no detail on valid fileset identifiers or optionality.

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 'List' and a clear resource 'files referenced by a Vivado fileset,' which conveys the tool's core function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough to separate it from tools like get_compile_order or check_syntax.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent cannot tell whether this is the right tool before listing a fileset compared to related analysis or reporting tools.

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