sweep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: repeated execution, the .DEFINE dependency, separate runs per value, and the max_points cap on returned samples. It also references 'Micro-Cap run' to indicate the external simulator context. It does not mention potential resource costs or confirm that files are not modified, but for a simulation/read-like tool this is a strong disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by prerequisite context, then a compact Args list. It uses code-style formatting for .DEFINE and examples, making it scannable. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the prerequisite, the analysis parameter's default, and the max_points limit. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and the description covers usage and behavioral aspects sufficiently.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter: netlist, parameter, values, analysis, and max_points. Each explanation is meaningful and includes an example for values. This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions and gives the AI agent all needed semantic 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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Run one netlist repeatedly, varying a .DEFINE parameter.' This clearly distinguishes sweep from the sibling simulate tool, which is for a single run, and the generate_* tools. The description also states the mechanism (varying a .DEFINE parameter) and the required deck declaration, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to run a netlist across multiple .DEFINE values. It also states prerequisites ('The deck must declare the symbol') and describes the per-value run behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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