Check Schematic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint—no LTspice execution—but omits return format, what problems are reported, and any side effects or auth needs. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it chooses to convey, though the information itself is incomplete.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of problems, severity, pass/fail). It also omits what structural checks are performed and the expected schematic_path format. Annotations cover safety, but the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter information. The required schematic_path has no schema description and no format guidance in the description, leaving the agent to infer the expected path; the optional workspace_root is documented only in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states an action ('Report structural problems') and a scope ('without running LTspice'), so the agent can recognize a static schematic checker. However, it never names the resource (schematic) or the kinds of problems checked, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as inspect_schematic or validate_topology_contribution. The purpose is recognizable but vague.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites are given. The phrase 'without running LTspice' implies a static-check scenario, but it does not tell the agent when to select this tool over inspect_schematic or other validation tools.

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