run_worst_case

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the analysis is deterministic and evaluates corners, which is consistent with idempotency. It explains the behavioral traits beyond annotations (sensitivity, corner combinations), though it could detail more about side effects or prerequisites.

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 and a brief parameter list, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 no output schema, 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and is moderately complex, the description only covers the core purpose and two parameters. It lacks guidance on circuit_id, frequency/time parameters, and expected return values, making it incomplete for an agent to use properly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains two parameters (analysis_type, tolerances) out of nine. It provides examples for those but leaves circuit_id, default_tolerance_pct, and frequency/time parameters undocumented. The description adds some meaning but insufficiently compensates for the low coverage.

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 the resource 'worst-case analysis', specifying it evaluates component sensitivity and deterministic corner combinations to find worst-case performance bounds. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'run_monte_carlo' (statistical) and other analysis types.

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 tolerance extremity analysis and provides example analysis_type values (ac, transient, dc_op) and tolerances mapping. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly mention alternatives like run_monte_carlo, though context from sibling names provides implicit guidance.

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