fastmean_dc

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

Adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the calculation runs in a private copy, uses a zero-duration native export, and DC ramps/delays are removed only in the copy and recorded. This explains why readOnlyHint=false and reassures that the user's circuit is not mutated — context the annotations alone do not convey. It does not describe runtime cost or what the recorded removal looks like, keeping it below a 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the private-copy caveat following immediately. Minor jargon ('zero-duration native export') but 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves most parameters unexplained and never says what the result contains (DC node voltages, selected signals, etc.). An agent must guess at timeout behavior, overrides, and definitions semantics before it can call this confidently.

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 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only explains one parameter (source_values) and hints at path; signals, timeout, overrides, and definitions are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Calculate the native DC operating point', which clearly separates it from sibling analyses like fastmean_ac, fastmean_transient, and fastmean_sweep. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the analysis-type naming makes the domain 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?

Implicit usage is inferable from the name and the DC operating point framing, and one conditional instruction is given ('Supply source_values to replace non-DC source waveforms'). However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over fastmean_sweep or fastmean_transient, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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