sch_get_template_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by stating it returns details. It adds value by outlining what the returned structured template includes (parameters, symbols, nets, placement hints) and by tying template_name to sch_list_templates output. No contradictions found.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, the input semantics, and the nature of the return value. The annotations handle safety, and the output schema handles detailed return structure, so no additional information is needed.

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%, but the description compensates with an Args section that explains template_name comes from sch_list_templates() and provides a concrete example ('buck_converter_generic'). This fully compensates for the missing schema description and adds practical usage guidance.

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 'Return full details for a subcircuit template' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sch_list_templates (which lists templates) and sch_instantiate_template (which instantiates), and it enumerates the contents of the returned details (parameters, symbols, nets, placement hints).

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 indicates a prerequisite: template_name must be 'as returned by sch_list_templates()', which gives clear context on the expected input source. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusionary instructions, so it falls short of a 5.

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