sch_generate_from_netlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the underlying method (setNetlist) and supported formats, adding some context about behavior, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing schematic, requires a specific document to be open, or has restrictions on netlist size). The mention of 'official' hints at reliability but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a short list of formats. It is efficient, but the format list is a bit cryptic (e.g., 'DISA/DSNET') without explanation, which could be seen as slightly wasteful for users unfamiliar with those terms. Otherwise, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., success indication, generated schematic). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., must have a schematic open) or error conditions. The description is adequate for a simple import tool but misses key context for an agent to fully anticipate the outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, describing both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds format context for the 'type' parameter (lists formats) but does not add semantics for 'netlist' beyond what the schema's example already shows. No additional format syntax or validation details are provided, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 action (import netlist to generate schematic) with a specific resource (sch_Netlist.setNetlist) and lists supported formats, distinguishing it from siblings like sch_get_netlist and sch_generate_from_pcb.

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 netlist-based schematic generation and lists formats, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like sch_generate_from_pcb or when not to use it (e.g., for PCB generation). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative pointers.

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