simulate_schematic

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses significant internal behavior: numeric export is forced on, NPts is overridden to `points`, and TMIN is repaired for batch mode. It also explains why these changes are necessary (stock schematics often yield no data), which helps the agent anticipate the tool's actions.

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 structured with a summary first, then usage guidance, then behavioral notes, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, including the references to get_example and simulate_example. It is longer than minimal, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need for precise usage.

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 the 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral quirks, and parameters. It also references related tools for fetching examples and understanding `points`. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. The description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 compensate. It provides an Args section that gives meaningful semantics to all parameters: schematic (full .CIR text), analysis (which analyses to run), defines (values for .DEFINE symbols), points (resolution), max_points (cap). While `analysis` remains somewhat vague, the descriptions are sufficient for basic invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Run a Micro-Cap .CIR schematic and return its data." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling `simulate` by stating that `simulate` is for plain SPICE netlists while this tool is for the coordinate-carrying .CIR format.

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 explicitly explains when to use it: "Use this to adapt a reference: fetch one with get_example... change a component value or two... and run the modified schematic here." It also names the alternative (`simulate`) and the exact condition for choosing this tool over it, providing a clear workflow.

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