summarize_tolerance_analysisCompute min, max, and mean values from stepped traces to assess tolerance and variation across simulation runs.
Summarize min, max, and mean of a stepped trace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal | Yes | ||
| raw_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 non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the output is min/max/mean (valuable since there is no output schema), but says nothing about how the trace is located or what happens on missing/large inputs.
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 eight-word sentence with the operation and result front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose.
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 3-parameter tool with two undocumented required inputs, no output schema, and a domain-specific concept ('stepped trace'), the description is too thin. The output fields are mentioned, but input semantics and usage context are not.
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 33% – only workspace_root is documented, while the required raw_path and signal have no schema descriptions. The description does not explain what raw_path points to or how signal is specified, 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 (summarize) and resource (stepped trace) plus the computed statistics, which gives the agent a concrete sense of the operation. It does not differentiate itself from the other summarize_* siblings (summarize_batch, summarize_device_operating_points), so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as read_waveform or measure_waveform. An agent can only infer that this follows a step sweep from the word 'stepped'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.