export_touchstone_s2pExport LTspice waveform data as a one-port-style Touchstone S2P file, with S21 set from output/reference signals and all other S-parameters zero.
Write a one-port-style S2P using S21 = output/reference and the other terms at 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| z0 | No | ||
| raw_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| output_signal | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. | |
| reference_signal | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description is consistent and adds genuine domain behavior: the resulting file's S-parameter construction. It does not disclose overwrite/return behavior for output_path or why the operation is non-idempotent, so it only partially goes beyond the annotations.
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 efficient, though the dense notation ('one-port-style S2P') borders on cryptic for readers without Touchstone familiarity.
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?
For a write/export tool with six parameters, 17% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It never explains the source (raw_path), the destination (output_path), impedance (z0), or the export workflow, leaving the agent short of what it needs to call it 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 only 17% (only workspace_root is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It hints that output_signal and reference_signal drive the S21 value, but raw_path, output_path, and z0 remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (Write) and resource (a one-port-style S2P), and even specifies the content rule (S21 = output/reference, other terms 0). This is concrete and unambiguous about what gets produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other export tools or explain S2P/Touchstone context.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a completed simulation/raw file), and no reference to alternatives among the many export_* siblings. The agent is left to infer when this is the right export tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.