plot_schematic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool runs a simulation and returns a JPEG, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. It offers enough for basic understanding but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core function, followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes value, no redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and usage well but fails to document parameter semantics or output details beyond JPEG. Somewhat incomplete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 explain parameters. It implicitly covers 'cir' by referring to .CIR schematics, but says nothing about 'points' or 'analysis' (which has a default 'ac'). This leaves the majority of parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific action: running a .CIR schematic and returning a JPEG plot. Clearly distinguishes from simulate_schematic by labeling it the 'picture companion' for visual inspection vs. numerical analysis.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to look at a schematic response, including reference or generated circuits. Also directs users to simulate_schematic when they need numbers, providing a clear alternative.

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