run_ngspice_simulation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It only discloses that execution is in batch mode and requires an environment variable. It does not mention side effects, output behavior, runtime expectations, or error scenarios, which is minimal for a simulation tool.

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 redundancy. It effectively front-loads the core purpose, but its brevity leaves out important parameter and context details. It earns points for efficiency, though not perfect for information completeness.

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 four nullable parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description does not provide enough context for correct usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input semantics are critically under-specified, making the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation of the four parameters (path, netlist, netlist_path, timeout_seconds). It fails to clarify whether these are alternatives, how they relate, or expected formats, leaving the agent without guidance beyond parameter names.

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's function with a specific verb ('Run'), a distinct resource ('ngspice netlist'), and a mode ('batch mode'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like run_openems_stripline_analysis by targeting ngspice specifically, and the prerequisite clause adds further scoping.

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 by mentioning 'user-supplied netlist' and the DIPTRACE_MCP_NGSPICE requirement, which is a precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the usage context partially implied.

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