Check whether a model parameter exists in the circuit netlist, verifying expected parameters are defined before simulation.
Check if a Model parameter exists. Useful for verifying circuit netlist defines the expected parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param_path | Yes | e.g. '/model/IS' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check if...exists' communicates a safe, read-only predicate, but it does not specify the return type, whether a missing parameter yields false versus an error, or how param_path is interpreted. This is adequate but leaves minor gaps.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the use case sentence earns its place by adding context without redundancy.
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 existence check, the description plus schema is nearly complete. The main gap is the lack of an output schema and no explicit statement of return behavior, but the predicate semantics make the tool's likely behavior clear enough for most agents.
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?
The input schema already documents param_path with an example and has 100% coverage. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the path refers to a Model parameter within a circuit netlist, which helps an agent understand the intended path format.
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 ('Check if...exists') and a specific resource ('Model parameter'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dpar_exists (device parameter) and object_exist. The 'circuit netlist' context further defines the intended scope.
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 provides a clear use case: verifying that a circuit netlist defines an expected parameter. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling existence checks or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the primary scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.