fastmean_ac

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: it operates on a working copy, graph windows and sweeps are disabled there, and the original SCM is untouched. That side-effect containment is exactly the kind of mutation-safety detail annotations cannot convey. It omits what happens on failure or how long a run takes, keeping it below 5.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the verb and outputs, then signal syntax, then the safety note. No filler sentences. Slight terseness ("native text", "working copy") leaves terms undefined, which costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return artifacts, which is a plus. But for an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema documentation, the purpose of path, overrides, definitions, and the frequency-range parameters is never addressed, leaving real gaps before the agent can call it correctly.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it only clarifies one: signals, with concrete expression syntax and naming rules. fmin, fmax, points, scale, overrides, definitions, and path are entirely unexplained, and "sweeps are disabled" arguably muddies rather than clarifies the fmin/fmax/points sweep parameters.

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+resource ("Run native AC analysis") and enumerates the four artifacts returned (CSV, native text, manifest, PNG chart), which distinguishes it from fastmean_transient, fastmean_dc, and fastmean_spectrum by analysis type. It never explicitly routes the agent to or away from those siblings, so it stops 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?

The signal examples (db(U(out)/U(in)), phs(...), mag(...), I(R1)) and the instruction to use exact circuit port/component names give real invocation guidance, implying this tool is used for frequency-domain sweeps on an existing circuit. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling handles the adjacent cases (sweep, spectrum, dc).

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