sim_run_dc_sweep

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action with no mention of side effects, required inputs, defaults, output behavior, or whether it mutates any state. Given the tool's complexity (simulation parameters, probe nets, netlist path), this is a significant gap.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is free of filler and easy to parse quickly. However, given the tool's 6 parameters and lack of context, the brevity borders on under-specification, though the structure itself is efficient.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and output schema exists but is not described. The single-sentence description is far too thin for a parametric simulation tool. It does not explain the sweep semantics, parameter defaults, required setup (e.g., netlist), or how results are returned. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The parameter names (start_v, stop_v, step_v, source_ref) are somewhat self-explanatory, but probe_nets and netlist_path are not clarified. No defaults, units, or relationships between parameters (e.g., step polarity, inclusive/exclusive bounds) are provided, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 'Run a DC sweep for an independent source' uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('DC sweep for an independent source'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools like sim_run_ac_analysis or sim_run_transient. It is concise and unambiguous about the core action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios for DC sweep (e.g., transfer characteristics, operating point vs. sweep), nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling names imply other analyses, but the description itself gives no usage context.

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