sim_run_transient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not state whether the simulation modifies state, requires a netlist, or how results are returned. This is insufficient 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 concise as a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and necessary context, making it more akin to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a simulation tool: prerequisites, input requirements, parameter roles, and differences from other simulation types. With 4 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain step_time_s, stop_time_s, probe_nets, or netlist_path, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which is inadequate.

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 and resource ('Run a transient time-domain simulation'), clearly indicating the simulation type. The phrase 'transient time-domain' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sim_run_ac_analysis or sim_run_dc_sweep, though it does not explicitly 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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., netlist_path), conditions for use, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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