describe_example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not run the circuit, states what it returns (analyses and expressions), and provides sequencing advice relative to another tool. This is rich behavioral context beyond a bare 'describe'.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose; the second adds return-value detail and a usage note. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage guidance well. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter definition, but the output schema handles return details and sibling tool names provide context, making this nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'name' with 0% coverage—no description in the schema. The tool description never explicitly states that 'name' refers to the reference circuit or example name, only implying it via the word 'reference circuit.' This leaves the parameter meaning ambiguous for an agent.

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 uses the specific verb 'report' with the resource 'reference circuit', and explicitly contrasts with simulate_example by adding 'without running it.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings and states what it does.

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?

It explicitly says 'Read this before simulate_example so you ask for an analysis that exists,' giving concrete when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative. This is clear, actionable direction for an agent.

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