draw_schematic

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: the generated URL is public and accessible, and it clarifies that users cannot see inline images. This adds value beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, etc.) by detailing output expectations.

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 with four sentences: first stating purpose, the next three giving crucial output instructions. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place 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 covers the main action and output handling, but misses explaining the 'fmt' parameter and error cases (e.g., invalid circuit_id). For a simple two-parameter tool, it is moderately complete but leaves gaps.

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?

The description only implicitly explains 'circuit_id' as referring to a stored circuit's netlist, but provides no details about 'fmt' (e.g., valid values like png, svg). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 schematic diagram from a stored circuit's netlist. The verb 'generate' and resource 'schematic diagram' are specific, and the source 'stored circuit's netlist' distinguishes it from other tools like 'open_viewer' that likely display existing schematics.

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 strong guidance on how to handle the output (always share the URL as clickable link), but lacks information on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., prerequisites like circuit must exist, or comparisons with 'open_viewer').

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