generate_transistor_amplifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the auto-bias behavior (computed to bias collector at mid-supply, preventing saturation), the constraint Rc > Re, the return type (.CIR text), and the gain formula. No destructive aspects are hidden, and the description adds significant behavioral context.

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 with a purpose sentence, a design rationale paragraph, and a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential technical details without fluff or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, key constraints, output format, and integration with simulate_schematic. The output schema exists, and the description explicitly states 'Returns the .CIR text', making it fully self-sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: rc/re (gain), r1/r2 (bias divider, auto vs override), vcc, cin, source (with syntax example), analysis (AC/Transient/DC), and output_node. It adds meaning far beyond the raw schema, including defaults and constraints.

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 states 'Draw a .CIR common-emitter BJT gain stage (NPN primitive)' with specific verb 'draw', resource 'common-emitter BJT gain stage', and output format '.CIR'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_emitter_follower and generate_mosfet_amplifier by specifying the topology.

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: this is a common-emitter stage with divider bias, unbypassed emitter degeneration, and AC coupling. It also instructs to feed the result to simulate_schematic. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison with sibling amplifier generators, so no full 5.

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