inspect_schematicSummarize an LTspice .asc schematic from a file path, returning a clear overview of its components and structure for quick review before simulation.
Summarize a schematic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schematic_path | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no indication of what the summary contains, how large the schematic may be, or whether it is text or a structured digest.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency – two words that omit all scope, format, and usage detail. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is earned either.
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, the description bears the burden of explaining what the summary looks like, yet it says nothing about return structure or scope. A single-line description is inadequate for a tool whose entire value is the shape of its summarized output.
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 50%: workspace_root is documented inline, but schematic_path (the required parameter) has no description. The description does not compensate by explaining path format, resolution rules, or the effect of the workspace_root override.
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?
"Summarize a schematic" names a verb (summarize) and a resource (schematic), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does nothing to separate this tool from near-neighbors such as check_schematic, read_net_connectivity, render_schematic_image, or list_components, leaving the agent to guess what "summarize" actually returns.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many schematic-inspection siblings. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is preferable to check_schematic or list_components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.