Convert SPICE netlists into Allegro netin-compatible simplified physical netlists (.tel style), preparing designs for PCB import and netin preprocessing.
把 SPICE 网表转换成 Allegro netin 接受的简化物理网表 (.tel 风格)。适合 netin 工具的预处理步骤。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save_path | No | 保存路径 | |
| spice_netlist | Yes | SPICE 网表文本 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (.tel style) but not whether the operation writes files, side effects, error behavior, permissions, or return semantics; for a conversion tool 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?
Two compact sentences: the first states the conversion and output format; the second gives the netin-preprocessing use case. No redundant text.
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 two-parameter conversion tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides essential input/output context and usage. It could mention save_path behavior or return format, but the core is complete.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States conversion from a SPICE netlist to an Allegro netin-compatible simplified physical netlist (.tel style), giving a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as generate_spice_netlist, though the netin preprocessing context is specific.
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?
Says it is suitable as a preprocessing step for the netin tool, giving clear context for when to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.