run_worst_casePrepare and run two corner simulations for an LTspice schematic by setting a reference parameter to low and high values, helping assess worst-case circuit behavior.
Prepare two corners and run them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| low | Yes | ||
| high | Yes | ||
| reference | Yes | ||
| schematic_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 non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what gets prepared, what side effects occur, or what the run modifies. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information for a five-parameter tool. The brevity does not earn its place because it fails to convey the tool's actual operation.
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 five-parameter, non-idempotent run tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what 'prepare' means, how the two corners are used, or how this relates to prepare_worst_case. The annotations provide only a basic safety profile, leaving major gaps.
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 20%, so the description must compensate but does not. 'Two corners' loosely hints that low and high are corner values, but reference, schematic_path, and workspace_root are completely unexplained. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema field names.
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 'Prepare two corners and run them' gives a vague action but never states that this is a worst-case analysis or what a 'corner' means in this domain. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like prepare_worst_case, run_simulation, or run_monte_carlo. The name and title carry the actual meaning.
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 prepare_worst_case or run_simulation. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.