run_circuit_simulation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the backend fallback chain, the Cadence license dependency, the degraded netlist-only outcome when neither simulator exists, and the returned measurements (peak/average/RMS) plus trace names. It stops short of covering runtime limits, file side effects in work_dir, or failure/error semantics.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then enumerates backend behavior in a compact numbered sequence, and closes with the return payload. Dense but waste-free; could be tightened only marginally.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return values (measurements and trace names) and the fallback return case. Combined with the license and backend caveats, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though side effects (written netlist files) and error handling remain unspecified.

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 all four parameters (netlist, analysis, work_dir, prefer_pspice) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format/syntax detail beyond noting the license precondition for prefer_pspice, so the baseline 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 a specific verb+resource ('执行电路仿真' / run circuit simulation) and immediately differentiates itself from siblings like generate_spice_netlist by describing what happens to the netlist rather than how to produce one. The three-step backend narrative makes its exact behavior identifiable without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context via the ordered backend-selection logic (PSpice → ngspice → netlist-only fallback), which tells an agent what will happen and when a license is required. It does not, however, name alternative sibling tools or state explicit conditions for preferring this tool over netlist generation/parsing tools.

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