model_get_circuit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the getter action and the resource, with no mention of read-only guarantees, return type, error conditions, or any side effects. The word 'Get' hints at non-mutating behavior, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. The key action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy 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?

For a single-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, this description is minimally viable: it tells the agent what the tool returns (the netlist) and what it acts on (the model). However, it lacks details about model_path format and the exact return value structure, leaving some room for guessing.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the only parameter, model_path. It does not explain whether model_path is a file path, object path, or how it identifies the model. The parameter name provides the only clue, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource, 'the Model's SPICE circuit netlist.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like model_set_circuit and model_get_mvars, which operate on different resources or perform writes.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. An agent must infer that this is simply the getter for the circuit netlist.

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