generate_emitter_follower

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the circuit topology, voltage gain behavior, auto-biasing, and the return type ('.CIR text'). This goes beyond a basic statement and gives the agent meaningful insight into the tool's behavior.

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: an overview sentence, a concise circuit explanation, and a clear Args list. Each sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers what it produces, how it works, parameter semantics, and how to use the output. The output schema handles return details, so no additional explanation is needed. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by providing an Args section that explains every parameter: re sets bias current, r1/r2 form a divider with auto-bias behavior, and source uses Micro-Cap syntax. This is far above bare schema information.

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 begins with 'Draw a .CIR emitter follower (common-collector BJT buffer)', clearly specifying the verb, resource, and circuit type. It distinguishes from sibling generator tools by explaining the circuit's function and characteristics.

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 clear context: it explains the buffer's purpose ('drives a heavy load without loading the source') and directs the user to feed the result to simulate_schematic. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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