simulate_example

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that numeric export is enabled automatically while shipped circuits have it off, and explains the points parameter behavior (display setting often 0 producing a single useless row). These are non-obvious behavioral traits beyond schema.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by brief contextual notes and parameter explanations. Each sentence contributes value, though the section is slightly long. The Args block is parsable and well-organized.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's role, prerequisite usage (describe_example), analysis limitations, and the important points caveat. Minor gaps like the relationship between max_points and points are not explained, but overall it is sufficiently complete for practical use.

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 zero property descriptions, but the description explains all four parameters in the Args section. Particularly for 'points' it adds crucial context about the circuits' display settings and how overriding makes results usable. This significantly exceeds 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 clearly states the tool 'Run one of Micro-Cap's own reference circuits and return its data.' It specifies a specific verb (run) and resource (Micro-Cap reference circuits), and the reference to using describe_example first distinguishes it from simulation of custom circuits and other generation tools.

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 explicit guidance: reference circuits are the 'cheapest way to get a trustworthy baseline before modifying anything' and instructs to use describe_example first to check supported analyses. It also warns that asking for an unsupported analysis 'returns nothing useful.' It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like simulate or sweep, but the context is clear.

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