schematic_from_netlist

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it parses netlists, places components on a grid, connects via net labels, carries over directives, and notes label-based rather than routed wiring. It also explains the round-trip capability and how unsupported elements are handled. 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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then covers process, limitations, and round-trip capability in logical order. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving high conciseness while maintaining clarity.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, input format, supported/unsupported elements, output characteristics, and response format options. The mention of skipped elements and round-trip integration with read_circuit provides adequate context 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the first non-blank line of 'content' is treated as a title and ignored, and lists supported element types. It also clarifies the 'name' parameter exclusion of '.asc' extension and the default behavior of 'overwrite'. This exceeds the schema descriptions.

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 states the tool generates an .asc schematic from SPICE netlist text, specifying verb (Generate), resource (.asc schematic), and input (SPICE netlist text). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_schematic' by detailing its automated placement and connection process, and explicitly lists unsupported elements that are returned for manual handling.

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 implies when to use this tool (to automatically generate a schematic from a netlist) and when not (for multi-terminal/subcircuit elements that require manual placement). It mentions round-tripping with read_circuit but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'create_schematic' or provide 'when not to use' guidance, though the limitations are clear.

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