annotate_schematic

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

With no annotations to provide safety or behavior hints, the description carries the burden. It discloses the internal process: runs DC operating point via a short transient at t=0, reads voltages from labelled Grid Text nodes, and overlays them. This is valuable behavioral context, though it could mention failure modes or side effects more explicitly.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main output. The two paragraphs are efficient and each sentence contributes meaning, though the second paragraph could be tightened without losing important detail.

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 only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, output format (SVG), and applicable use cases. It lacks explicit parameter meaning and error details, but is reasonably complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 for the undocumented 'cir' parameter. However, the description never explicitly defines 'cir' or explains what value to pass. The tool context implies it is the circuit/schematic, but this is not stated, making the parameter semantics under-specified.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Render the schematic as SVG with each labelled node's DC operating-point voltage written beside it.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_schematic and plot_schematic by adding the DC annotation value.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Best on the generated stages and other circuits that hold a stable operating point.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough.

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