create_model

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with a creation tool. The description adds that omitted parameters use defaults, providing minor behavioral insight, but overall does not significantly expand beyond 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 concise (2 lines plus a compact bullet list), front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., file path or content), leaving a gap for a creation tool. It also omits prerequisites or side effects, though annotations mitigate safety concerns. Overall adequate but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: component_type is limited to four values, name is the model name, and parameters are optional key-value pairs with defaults. This substantially clarifies the otherwise bare schema.

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 generates a SPICE .lib model file from datasheet parameters, with a specific list of component types (opamp, bjt, mosfet, diode). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_models or load_template.

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 provides some guidance on parameters (type-specific, defaults) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_models or auto_design. Usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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