auto_design

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

Annotations indicate a read-write but non-destructive tool. The description adds failure behavior (partial results with error key and failed_step) and specific instructions for handling schematic_url, which are not covered by annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points for parameters, front-loading the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value, such as return format and URL instructions.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (accumulated results, failure handling) and critical user interaction details (schematic URL sharing). It is complete for a tool of this 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains three of four parameters: specs format (compare_specs style), sim_type values (ac/transient/dc), and sim_params optional overrides. template_id is not elaborated beyond its name.

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 'Run the full design loop in one call: load template, simulate, and verify,' which combines multiple steps. It distinguishes itself from siblings like load_template or run_ac_analysis by being a composite tool.

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 implies usage for a complete design loop but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual simulation tools. It provides parameter format guidelines but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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