fastmean_export_netlist

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

Annotations only give generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the operation runs in a private batch process on a sanitized recursive working copy, exits after save_netlist, returns bounded text plus netlist and provenance artifacts, and never launches a GUI. It also discloses timeouts (1–60s, scoped only to the owned worker) and the cancellation mechanism, which are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a non-idempotent native call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in sentence one, then layered with process, exclusion, and lifecycle details. It is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('owned worker', 'sanitized recursive working copy') but nearly every clause carries operational information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no meaningful schema descriptions, the description covers returns (bounded text, netlist, provenance artifacts), isolation model, exclusions, and timeout/cancellation behavior. The remaining gaps are the semantics of 'path' and any permission or failure-mode notes.

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 carry the parameter load. It does explain 'timeout': that it bounds only the owned worker and is clamped to 1–60 seconds, which is meaningful beyond the schema's min/max/default. The required 'path' parameter is never characterized — file to read, working directory, or output location is left ambiguous.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (export) and a precise resource (the installed FASTMEAN engine's native expanded circuit netlist), which is clearly distinct from siblings like inspect, read_data, or preview. It never names an alternative sibling by name, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 creates exclusions — no GUI launch, no AC/transient simulation — which implicitly routes simulation work to fastmean_ac/fastmean_transient, but it never says 'use X instead when Y'. The usage context is implied (batch export of a netlist from an installed engine) rather than stated as a decision rule.

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