sch_assemble_circuit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-wiring, auto-inserting VCC/GND/net-port symbols, and placing components at free positions. It does not mention undo or mutability explicitly, but the saveCheckpoint parameter hints at checkpoint creation. Overall, it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and then provide essential details. There is no superfluous information; every sentence is useful and earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain return values, but for an assembly tool this may be acceptable. The description covers the purpose, behavior, and parameter roles comprehensively. The schema fully documents all parameters. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description is adequate for agent invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the high-level process: 'place a list of components and auto-wire them locally by net name', which clarifies how the 'components' and 'nets' parameters interact. It also explains the auto-insertion of symbols, going beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'place a list of components and auto-wire them locally by net name'. It distinguishes from siblings like sch_place_component (single component placement) and sch_create_wire (manual wiring) by specifying batch placement and auto-wiring. The phrase 'High-level' sets scope, and 'No external server, no AI' adds clarity.

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 indicates when to use: 'Ideal for generating a schematic from a parts+nets list'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., sch_place_component, sch_create_wire) provide implicit alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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