measure_stability_marginsCalculate gain and phase margins from an LTspice .raw simulation against a reference, then save the results to a specified output file.
Gain and phase margins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | ||
| raw_path | Yes | ||
| reference | 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - it does not say what file it reads, what artifact is written to `output`, or what `reference` designates.
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?
Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy: it is four words with no verb, no scope, and no front-loaded purpose. Nothing is wasted because almost nothing is said.
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?
A four-parameter measurement tool with no output schema, 25% schema coverage, and three required undocumented inputs needs substantially more description than this. Key inputs and the produced artifact are left entirely to inference.
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 25% (just workspace_root). The three required parameters (raw_path, output, reference) are undocumented in both schema and description, and the four-word description supplies no compensating meaning for any of them.
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?
"Gain and phase margins." is a noun fragment that largely restates the title rather than stating a verb+resource action. An agent can infer the tool measures something about stability margins from a raw file, but there is no statement of what is operated on or produced.
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 at all: nothing distinguishes it from siblings like measure_bode_response, measure_step_response, or list_measures/read_measures. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.