generate_differential_pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool auto-sizes bias for mid-supply, that both collectors are labelled, and that the default trace plots OUTP (with instruction to edit for OUTN). It also explains the gain relationship and that it returns .CIR text, which is transparent about output and side-effect-free generation. It could add error conditions or limitations, but for a generator it is quite thorough.

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 well-structured: a concise summary paragraph, a paragraph on circuit behavior and gain, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and provides crucial context (gain formula, auto-sizing) without becoming bloated.

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 complexity (7 params, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, topology, parameter semantics, and return value. It lacks an explanation of what 'analysis' values (AC, Transient, DC) actually do or how to choose among them, but the output schema likely covers return structure. The description is complete enough for a knowledgeable user to invoke correctly, with minor gaps around analysis type semantics.

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 fully compensates by listing all 7 parameters with semantic meaning. Each parameter's purpose is explained (e.g., 'rc: collector load on each side', 'rt: emitter tail resistor; leave unset to auto-size', 'output_node: which collector the default trace plots'). This goes far beyond the schema's parameter titles and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Draw a .CIR BJT long-tailed (differential) pair.' It explicitly names the circuit type and differentiates it from sibling generator tools by detailing the topology (matched NPN pair, tail resistor, collector loads) and the unique auto-biasing behavior.

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 implies usage for generating a differential pair circuit but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like generate_amplifier or generate_cascode. It provides guidance for parameter usage (e.g., 'leave unset to auto-size') but no exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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