sim_run_operating_point

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that an analysis is run, with no details about side effects, permissions, or requirements. The tool's behavior beyond the name is undisclosed.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though the content is lacking.

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 simulation tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description leaves out essential context such as how inputs are used and what the analysis entails beyond the name. The output schema provides structure but not conceptual guidance.

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 mention probe_nets or netlist_path. The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they affect the analysis.

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 states 'Run a DC operating-point analysis,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling simulation tools like sim_run_ac_analysis and sim_run_transient by naming the analysis type, though it does not explicitly contrast 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sim_run_dc_sweep or sim_run_transient. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or why one would choose this analysis.

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