read_circuit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the different return contents for netlists vs schematics, and notes supported file extensions. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the main action, and the second explains the two cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters), excellent annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does for both netlist and schematic inputs. It mentions file extensions and return types, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (both path and format have descriptions). The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does provide context about the tool's output types which indirectly aids understanding. Baseline 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 explicitly states the tool reads and parses circuit files (.cir/.net/.asc) and distinguishes between netlists (returns content/component values) and schematics (returns layout/directives). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like validate_netlist or trace_net.

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., trace_net, component_info, or validate_netlist). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned, though the read-only nature is implied.

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