run_dc_op

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'injects a .op command into a temporary copy of the netlist (does not modify the original file)' and that results are small enough to return directly. This provides clear insight into side effects and performance characteristics, though it could also mention error handling or permissions.

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 description is concise and well-structured, with separate sections for purpose, behavior, arguments, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given that the tool has only one parameter and an output schema is provided in the description, the description covers the necessary information: what the tool does, how it works, what is returned, and the format of the result. It is complete for its simplicity, though it could mention potential errors or limitations to achieve full completeness.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must add meaning. The Args section clarifies that 'netlist_path' is an 'Absolute path to the netlist file', which provides essential semantic context beyond the schema's mere type definition. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool performs a DC operating point analysis on a SPICE netlist. The verb 'Run' and specific resource 'DC operating point analysis' are precise. The tool name and description differentiate it from siblings such as AC analysis, sweep, and transient, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like run_ac_analysis or run_transient. There is no explicit context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an AI agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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