Load 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. It discloses key side effects: replacing the current circuit, resetting simulation time to 0, keeping simulator state across calls, and returning parsed elements for verification. This goes beyond the bare schema and gives the agent useful behavioral expectations.

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?

Three purposeful sentences cover action, input format, side effects, return value, and state persistence. The core operation is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 moderately simple load tool with no output schema, the description covers the required input format, reset behavior, return value, and cross-call statefulness. Combined with a fully described schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, and the schema already explains the text format, the '$' line, reasonable defaults, and the run boolean. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the returned element list, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States the operation (replace), the exact resource (current circuit), the input format (Falstad CircuitJS1 text starting with a '$' line), and the return value. This stands apart from siblings such as circuit_export and circuit_state, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Clear that this tool is for installing a new circuit definition and that simulator state persists across calls, implying use at circuit-setup/load time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling has an overlapping function, so the gap is small.

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