generate_schematic

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, and it does. It clarifies that the tool produces a drawn schematic rather than a netlist ('produces a drawn schematic you can open in Micro-Cap'), ensures electrical fidelity ('Every pin position is taken from Micro-Cap's own component library, so the drawn circuit is electrically what you asked for'), and states the return value ('Returns the .CIR text and the ordered part references'). No contradictions exist.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, then context, scope, and parameter details. While moderately long, every sentence adds value: the 'Bounded on purpose' paragraph sets expectations, examples clarify usage, and the Args section is organized. No filler or repetition significant enough to reduce the score.

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 is complete given the tool's complexity. It explains the circuit topology, parameter syntax, return values, and relationship to sibling tools. An output schema exists to cover the return structure, and the description still mentions the return value. It even includes examples for common use cases and limitations, making it fully self-contained.

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 must fully explain parameters. It does this exceptionally: each argument (parts, source, analysis, output_node, shunt) is described with format, examples, and default behavior. For instance, parts are 'ordered "KIND=VALUE" strings in series, KIND in R/C/L, e.g. ["R=1K", "C=159.155N"]' and shunt is 'extra "KIND=VALUE" strings hung in parallel from the output node to ground.'

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 the tool's function: 'Draw a .CIR schematic: a voltage source driving parts in series to ground, optionally with parallel branches from the output node to ground.' It uses a specific verb ('Draw'), resource ('.CIR schematic'), and scope, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings: 'For an op-amp gain stage use generate_amplifier; for a common-emitter BJT stage use generate_transistor_amplifier.'

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 excellent usage guidance: it explains the tool's bounded purpose ('Bounded on purpose — a source, a series chain of two-terminal passives (R, C, L), and optional parallel shunt branches'), mentions what it covers ('RC/RL/RLC, dividers, and resonant tanks'), suggests a workflow ('Feed the result to simulate_schematic to run it'), and explicitly names alternatives for other circuit types ('For an op-amp gain stage use generate_amplifier...').

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