Generate an ASCII schematic of power domains, buses, and connected subsystems from a hardware netlist to visualize circuit architecture and verify connectivity.
Render a clean, structured ASCII architectural diagram of power domains, buses, and connected subsystems.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| netlist | Yes | Hardware netlist dictionary or synthesis result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the output format ('clean, structured ASCII'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context not in the annotations, but says nothing about scale limits, diagram size, or failure behavior on invalid netlists.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The verb and output are stated immediately and nothing is padded.
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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by identifying the output as an ASCII diagram of power domains, buses, and subsystems. It is a bit thin on input expectation and usage context, but adequate given the annotations on safety.
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 100% with a single required 'netlist' object parameter whose schema already documents it as a 'Hardware netlist dictionary or synthesis result.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Render) and resource (ASCII architectural diagram of power domains, buses, connected subsystems). A reader knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that also touch topology/domain concepts, such as analyze_power_tree or list_circuit_blocks.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is a visualization tool versus the analyze_* or export_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.