load_template

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

Beyond annotations (which only show non-readonly and non-destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: automatic solver run if specs provided, result snapping to E24 values, netlist param updates, and explicit param overriding. This adds significant context.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then specifying conditional behavior. No fluff, but could be slightly improved by ordering constraints or prerequisites more clearly.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow (loading template, optional solver) but omits details on the 'models' parameter and what the tool returns. It is adequate but not fully 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 explains the 'specs' and 'params' parameters effectively, but does not describe 'template_id' (required) or 'models'. This leaves two of four parameters unexplained, partially compensating but not fully.

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 it loads a circuit template and creates a circuit, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'create_circuit' by focusing on template loading, but could more explicitly distinguish from 'auto_design' or 'calculate_components'.

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 when loading a template and optionally running the solver, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto_design' or 'create_circuit'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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