run_transient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a temporary copy (no modification to original), injects a .tran command, saves results to .npz file, and provides loading instructions. This gives good insight into behavior.

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 well-structured: a concise summary sentence followed by behavioral details, an example usage, alternative tool reference, and clear parameter descriptions. No wasted sentences.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers return format (JSON summary with data_file, time range, trace names). It also addresses key behavioral aspects like file creation. For a moderate complexity tool (4 params, SPICE context), it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: netlist_path, step_time, stop_time, and start_time (including default and format examples like '1n', '10u'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Run a transient simulation on a SPICE netlist' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool run_sweep by noting that run_sweep is for parameter sweeping across multiple runs.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (single transient analysis) and explicitly directs to run_sweep for sweeping parameters. It does not list explicit when-not scenarios but offers a clear alternative.

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