digital_inspect_circuit

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

The description adds value by stating the action is a read and that the return value contains specific circuit data, which is useful since no annotations are present. However, it does not disclose error behavior, path requirements, or whether the inspection has any side effects.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. The core action and output content types are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 adequate for a simple one-parameter inspection tool and mentions the main return categories. It is not fully complete because it omits exact return structure, path semantics, and explicit guidance for distinguishing this tool from the related digital_* siblings.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter, but it only indirectly implies that a .dig file is the target. It does not explain what path values are valid, whether the path must be local, or how the file is located.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource (Digital .dig file), and the kind of data returned (elements, positions, attributes, wires). It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named siblings like digital_open_circuit or digital_load_circuit.

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 purpose implies it should be used when the agent needs to inspect the logical contents of a .dig file, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as digital_render_circuit or digital_run_tests. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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