sch_place_probe

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return keys and that the probe attaches to the active schematic (implying an open document is required). It does not say what happens when the point is not on a wire, whether probes can be moved or removed, or how probe_method changes collection behavior, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by a compact context sentence and a well-formed Args block. The Returns block is partly redundant given the tool has an output schema, which is the only wasted space.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers all four parameters plus the simulation purpose. Remaining gaps (probe_method semantics, error conditions, deletion/undo) are modest for a simple placement tool but keep it below a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it supplies the mils unit for x/y (absent from the schema), marks net_name as an optional explicit net label, and names both probe_method values with the default. The main shortfall is that 'probed_nets_only' vs 'all_nets' is never explained in behavioral terms.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Place a probe/measurement marker') on a clearly scoped target ('the active schematic'). The follow-up sentence distinguishes it from a plain net label by explaining that probes declare simulation capture points, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like sch_place_net_label or sch_place_junction.

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?

It states the operative context ('Attach one to a wire... in simulation runs'), which tells the agent this is a simulation-preparation step rather than a general annotation. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to use sim_attach_primitives or sch_place_net_label instead), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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