prepare_transientInserts a .tran directive into an LTspice schematic to configure transient simulation, using t_stop and optional t_start, t_step, and max_step values.
Insert a .tran directive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| t_step | No | ||
| t_stop | Yes | ||
| t_start | No | ||
| max_step | No | ||
| 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 disclose that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether it overwrites an existing .tran directive, whether it modifies a file or in-memory schematic, or what happens on invalid input.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a six-parameter mutation tool, this size is not appropriate to the complexity.
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 complexity (six parameters, a mutation, no output schema) and the low schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
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 17% (just workspace_root), leaving five parameters undocumented in the schema, and the description provides zero parameter information. It does not explain the units, formats, defaults, or roles of t_stop, t_step, t_start, max_step, or schematic_path, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 ('Insert') and a specific artifact ('.tran directive'), so an agent can tell it configures transient analysis. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like prepare_ac or prepare_dc_sweep, but the directive name implies the distinction.
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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. The agent must infer from the tool name that this is for transient analysis rather than any of the other prepare_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.