read_fourierReads the Fourier section of an LTspice log to extract harmonic and distortion analysis results for review.
Read the Fourier section of a log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log_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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the read targets the Fourier section of a log, which is useful scope but not substantial behavioral detail.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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 specialized log-reading tool among many read_* and prepare_* siblings, the description does not explain prerequisites, when Fourier output is available, or how it relates to read_log. It identifies the source only vaguely.
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 50%: workspace_root is documented, but the required log_path has no schema description. The description only implies that log_path refers to a log and adds no format, path conventions, or constraints for the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: reading the Fourier section of a log. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling read tools like read_log or read_waveform.
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 versus alternatives such as read_log, read_measures, or prepare_four. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.