export_spice_netlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one non-obvious behavior: active devices are listed as skipped rather than guessed. However, it does not mention whether it overwrites output files, what happens when output_path is null, or how follow_hierarchy affects the export.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat placed second. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

Although an output schema may cover return values, the description is incomplete for selection and invocation: it lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and side-effect information. The description feels like a brief note rather than a complete tool contract.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'From the schematic' only weakly maps to schematic_path, while output_path and follow_hierarchy remain 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('SPICE netlist') and clearly ties it to the schematic. The added caveat about active devices being skipped rather than guessed distinguishes it from related netlist/simulation tools like verify_netlist or run_spice.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as simulate_subcircuits, run_spice, or verify_netlist. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints that would help an agent choose among sibling tools.

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