Run Param Sweep

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description hints at mutation ('add a .step') but does not say what is modified on disk, whether the schematic is altered, where outputs land, or that a simulation is launched. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this adds almost no behavioral context beyond the implication of running a simulation.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than efficiency. Every word is terse LTspice jargon, so the size is fine but the structure conveys minimal information.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool that launches a simulation, with no output schema and mostly undocumented parameters, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot know what is mutated, what the statement syntax is, or what comes back.

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 only 33% and two of three parameters (statement, schematic_path) have no schema descriptions. The description mentions '.step' which loosely relates to the 'statement' parameter, but it never explains the format of the statement, what schematic_path should point to, or how workspace_root override behaves.

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 says to add a '.step' directive and run once, but never states that the tool adds a parameter sweep directive and executes the simulation. It leans heavily on LTspice internal jargon rather than naming the action and resource. Siblings like run_value_sweep, run_model_sweep and prepare_step exist, yet the description doesn't differentiate itself from them.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus prepare_step, run_value_sweep, run_model_sweep, or run_simulation. The terse imperative 'Add a .step and run once' is a procedure fragment, not usage guidance with alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.