export_spice_netlist

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description doesn't explain what side effects (e.g., file overwriting) might occur, which is a notable gap for a destructive 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 extremely concise—a single sentence—but it's arguably under-specified. It repeats the tool name's content without adding meaningful elaboration, which means it doesn't fully earn its place as an explanatory description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params) and the annotations, a minimal description might suffice. However, the description lacks context about the output format, the difference from export_netlist, or any destructive behavior, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool marked as destructive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The input schema is empty and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary detail. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states the action (export) and the resource (a SPICE netlist), using a specific verb+resource pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling export tools like export_netlist beyond the 'SPICE' qualifier, so it's not as strong as a fully distinguishing description.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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