read_noiseExtract noise lines from an LTspice log to inspect simulation noise results and diagnose circuit behavior.
Read noise lines from 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline – no format, error, or output-shape context for a log-reading tool with no output schema.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But it is under-specified rather than efficient, and there is no front-loaded guidance beyond the bare action.
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 an undocumented required parameter, the description needs to carry more of the load and does not. An agent lacks enough information about input format or return content to call this confidently.
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 50%, and the undocumented parameter is log_path, the single required one. The description offers no clarification of log_path's expected value or the workspace_root override, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('read noise lines from a log'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, 'noise lines' is ambiguous without knowing this is SPICE .noise output, and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as read_log or prepare_noise.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus read_log, read_fourier, or the other read_* extraction tools, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.