draw_schematic

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 it bypasses Micro-Cap's broken batch command, draws directly from the .CIR, and returns self-contained SVG. It also notes no simulation runs, which is a behavioral constraint. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., unsupported components) but covers the essential behavior and output format.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: it explains the need (batch incompatibility), the input, the output, and a use case. It avoids fluff and is well-structured, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.

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 a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, why it exists, the input, the output type (SVG), how to use the output ('save it as .svg or embed it'), and disclaims simulation. There are no significant gaps for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter 'cir' is implied consistently throughout: the description repeatedly references the '.CIR' source. It does not explicitly state whether it expects a file path or raw content, but the meaning is clear enough. This exceeds the schema's bare 'string' type, though explicit parameter syntax would be even better.

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 what the tool does: 'Render a .CIR schematic as an SVG picture.' It uniquely distinguishes itself from plotting with 'the *drawing*, not a plot' and explicitly positions itself relative to Micro-Cap's batch limitation. The verb 'render' and resource '.CIR schematic' are specific, and the contrast with plotting and simulation differentiates it from siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use: 'Use it to *see* a circuit' without opening Micro-Cap, and explicitly excludes simulation ('No simulation runs'). However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use simulate_schematic for simulation'), instead implying them via 'not a plot' and 'no simulation runs.' This is clear but not as explicit as directly naming alternatives.

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