Prepare Temperature Sweep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this writes and is non-idempotent. The description adds only the literal directive text and nothing about whether the write mutates the file in place, appends on repeat calls, or has side effects on existing analyses. Minimal added value over 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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, so it is not bloated. But the size comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, and there is no structure to front-load because there is only one clause.

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 mutating tool with four required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects, and only 20% schema coverage, the description is far too thin: it omits the target file, the accepted value format for start/stop/step, and any effect on prior directives. None of the structured fields fill these gaps.

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 20% – only workspace_root is documented – leaving all four required parameters (schematic_path, start, stop, step) with no format information anywhere. The description supplies nothing to compensate; "temperature sweep" only loosely implies start/stop/step are temperatures, and with all params typed as bare strings the agent gets no units or syntax guidance.

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 concrete verb and artifact ("Insert a ``.step temp`` directive"), so the agent knows the output is a SPICE temperature-sweep directive. However it never says what the directive is inserted into (schematic? netlist? which file), and it does nothing to separate this from near-identical siblings such as prepare_step or prepare_dc_sweep. Specific but under-resolved.

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: no statement that this is for temperature sweeps versus the generic prepare_step or prepare_dc_sweep, no prerequisite (e.g. an existing schematic), and no ordering advice relative to run_simulation. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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