Read circuit state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as a non-mutating read and lists what will be reported. It does not disclose potential edge cases such as behavior when the simulation is not running or the possibility of very large output, but it is generally transparent for a read-only state inspection 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the primary behavior, linking to run_transient usage, and explaining the optional parameter. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the returned data, the source of valid node labels, and a cross-tool usage hint. Minor gaps such as output formatting, units, or error behavior are absent, but these are not critical for correctly invoking this tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that acceptable node names are labeled nodes and giving a concrete provenance example ('207 ...' labeled-node elements). It also clarifies the optional nature of the parameter.

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 clear read operation on the current simulation state and enumerates the specific data returned: time, running flag, timestep, and per-element voltage difference, current, post voltages, and info string. The verb 'read' and the explicit data inventory distinguish it from the write/control siblings in the context.

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 concrete usage hint: use returned element index values with run_transient probes. It also explains when to pass labeled node names. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer circuit_state over siblings like circuit_load or sim_control, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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