read_component_symbolRead an LTspice .asy symbol file to inspect component definitions, pin layout, and graphics before editing schematics or running simulations.
Read an .asy symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol_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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further context: it doesn't say what is returned, whether the path is resolved against workspace_root, or what happens if the symbol does not exist. For a file-reading tool this is a meaningful gap.
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 free of filler, which is good, but it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. No wasted words, but also very little content.
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?
With no output schema and no description of the returned symbol representation, the definition leaves the agent unable to predict the result of a read. Combined with the unexplained .asy concept and the undocumented required parameter, the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation.
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?
Only 50% schema coverage: workspace_root is described in the schema, but symbol_path has no description in either schema or prompt. The description says nothing about path format (absolute vs. workspace-relative) or resolution rules, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 verb plus resource ('Read' + '.asy symbol'), but never explains what an .asy symbol is or how it differs from the closely-named sibling read_component or from create_asy_symbol/export_symbol_to_asy. An agent can guess the intent but cannot confidently disambiguate from siblings.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. With siblings like read_component, create_asy_symbol, and add_component_from_asy in the same family, the description should route the agent, but it offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.