sim_run_ac_analysis

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required setup (e.g., netlist), or the nature of results. The statement only asserts the action 'run a sweep' without any operational details.

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, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it an exemplary concise statement.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks usage context, parameter meaning, and any operational prerequisites, though the core purpose is at least clearly stated.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The word 'sweep' hints at frequency range, but probe_nets, netlist_path, and points_per_decade are ignored. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool runs a small-signal AC sweep, a specific and distinct analysis type. This distinguishes it from sibling simulation tools like sim_run_transient and sim_run_dc_sweep, even though it doesn't name them.

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 on when to use AC analysis versus other simulation types, nor are any prerequisites or alternatives mentioned. The description simply states what the tool does without any contextual or selection advice.

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