operating_point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of data returned, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., error handling beyond the schema note on 'step', performance, or output size). With strong annotations, the description does not need extensive behavioral disclosure, but it does not add significant value beyond them.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core function. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the action and result. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient given the existence of a thorough input schema and annotations. It covers the essence of what the tool does. However, it could mention the requirement for a .raw file (though schema already marks 'raw_file' as required) or clarify the context of 'operating point' (e.g., from .OP simulation). The presence of an output schema helps, but a small addition would make it more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters thoroughly ('raw_file', 'step' with default and error behavior, 'format' with enum options). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Read' and resource 'DC operating point data showing all node voltages and branch currents', clearly indicating what the tool returns. It is distinct from sibling read tools like 'component_info' or 'simulation_summary' by specifying the scope of the data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, and the title is null, so a slight deduction for not leveraging the title.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool (e.g., 'simulation_summary' for summary metrics) might be more appropriate. The agent must rely on context and sibling names to infer usage.

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