generate_amplifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it 'produces a drawn schematic' and returns the .CIR text, and explains how feedback resistor is sized. This gives a solid understanding of tool behavior and output format, though it omits explicit side effects or error conditions.

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?

Description is front-loaded with a clear action statement, includes concise formulas, and has a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the explanation of rin's dual roles is efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, 1 required) and the output schema indicating return value, the description fully specifies parameter semantics, output, and intended usage. It even covers the feedback resistor calculation and downstream use with simulate_schematic.

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 Args section explains every parameter with additional semantic detail beyond schema defaults: gain's constraints, kind's two options, rin's role depending on kind, source's Micro-Cap syntax, analysis options, and output_node label. This fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Draw a .CIR op-amp amplifier with a near-ideal op-amp', specifying the exact resource and distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_transistor_amplifier. It also explains inverting/non-inverting configurations with formulas.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (generating op-amp amplifier .CIR) and mentions 'feed it to simulate_schematic or hand the .CIR to the user' for downstream usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative generator tools, making it a 4 rather than 5.

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