Prepare Loop Gain Analysis

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what 'staging' mutates, whether it touches the schematic file, what workspace state it requires, or what artifacts it produces.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. For a 5-parameter engineering tool, one terse clause is too thin.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (AC loop-gain setup with an extra-source injection), five parameters, no output schema, and only generic annotations, the description is materially incomplete. An agent could not confidently call this without inspecting the schema and guessing at the frequency/injection semantics.

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 coverage is only 20% (only workspace_root is documented), so the description carries the burden of explaining f_start, f_end, schematic_path, and injection_source — and it explains none of them. 'Extra-source method' loosely hints at injection_source, but the frequency range and schematic inputs remain 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?

The description names a specific verb ('stage') and resource ('AC loop-gain run') plus a method qualifier ('extra-source method'), so the domain is identifiable. However, 'stage' is ambiguous about whether it configures directives, generates a netlist, or runs the simulation, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_ac or measure_stability_margins.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites it needs, or how it relates to the many other 'prepare_*' tools. The agent is left to infer that this is the loop-gain variant, with no stated conditions or alternatives.

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