materialize_reference_circuitWrites a built-in LTspice reference circuit to a destination path from a recipe ID, so you can start simulations with ready schematics.
Write a built-in reference circuit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. | |
| destination_path | Yes |
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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the written artifact is 'built-in', with no mention of what happens if destination_path already exists, overwrite semantics, or auth requirements.
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 zero padding, which is structurally clean. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, so it is only adequate.
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 mutation tool with three parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. It omits what a recipe_id refers to, where destination_path writes, and what the caller gets back, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation.
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 33% (only workspace_root is documented); recipe_id and destination_path have no schema descriptions and the tool description never mentions them. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving two required parameters semantically opaque.
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 (built-in reference circuit), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named siblings materialize_recipe, list_reference_circuit_recipes, or describe_reference_circuit_recipe, so an agent cannot tell what a 'reference circuit' is or how this differs from a generic recipe materialization.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never points to the obvious alternatives (list_reference_circuit_recipes to discover a recipe_id, describe_reference_circuit_recipe to preview it). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.