read_waveformExtract a selected signal from an LTspice .raw waveform file, applying time bounds and a point limit to inspect simulation results.
Read one budgeted waveform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| t_end | No | ||
| signal | Yes | ||
| t_start | No | ||
| raw_path | Yes | ||
| max_points | No | ||
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations; 'budgeted' hints at a point limit but does not explain what the budget is, what happens at the limit, or what authorization or path constraints apply.
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 waveform-reading tool, this brevity leaves the agent without the context needed to call it correctly.
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 six parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no useful description of inputs or behavior, the definition is critically incomplete. The strong annotations cover safety but not the substantive task information an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly among many waveform-related siblings.
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%, and the description explains none of the six parameters. Required parameters raw_path and signal, plus optional t_start, t_end, and max_points, are left undocumented by both description and schema, so the description 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?
The description essentially restates the tool name and title, adding only the undefined qualifier 'budgeted'. It gives no indication of source format, signal selection, or how it differs from sibling tools such as plot_waveforms, measure_waveform, or export_waveform_csv.
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 exclusions, and no named alternatives. The many sibling read/plot/export waveform tools make this omission costly, though the description at least implies a basic read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.