run_ac_analysis

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating the tool is safe to rerun. The description adds that the analysis is on a 'stored circuit,' implying the circuit must exist. No further behavioral traits are disclosed, such as output format or error handling, but annotations cover the basics adequately.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly brief, omitting important details that could be included without becoming verbose. It gets a middle score for being efficient but inadequate.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameters, output, or how this analysis relates to others. The mention of 'stored circuit' is the only contextual hint. A more complete description would include parameter guidance and behavioral notes.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter. While parameter names like 'start_freq' and 'stop_freq' offer some clues, the description fails to clarify units, allowed ranges, or the role of each parameter. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to set parameters correctly.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'AC analysis on a stored circuit', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling analysis tools like run_dc_op or run_transient, leaving the agent without guidance on when to choose this specific 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools for different analyses, this lack of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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