sim_check_stability

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose but does not clarify whether the tool runs a simulation internally, requires an existing sweep, modifies anything, or produces side effects. This lack of detail is significant for a simulation 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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundancies or filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and target, making it easy to parse, though the extreme brevity leaves out important supporting details.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description is inadequate for a 6-parameter simulation tool. It omits parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, and behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description mentions none of them. It does not explain the role of output_net, feedback_net, or the frequency settings, leaving the agent without any added meaning beyond field names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and clearly identifies the resource ('loop crossover and phase margin from an AC sweep'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling simulation tools like sim_run_ac_analysis or sim_run_transient, which focus on generating sweep data rather than deriving stability metrics.

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 phrase 'from an AC sweep' implies that an AC sweep should exist or be performed, providing some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus sim_run_ac_analysis, nor any prerequisites or exclusions stated, so the guidance remains largely implicit.

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