run_spice

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 only states that the tool runs a deck and returns parsed measurements. It does not mention the optional timeout, potential resource implications of 'arbitrary' decks, error behavior, or whether this is a pure simulation with no side effects. The phrase 'arbitrary' hints at permissiveness, but important behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of crucial information such as parameter semantics and usage context. It is efficient but under-specified for a tool definition.

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 the tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema, the description omits usage guidance and parameter details. The presence of a sibling like 'simulate_subcircuits' creates selection ambiguity that this description does not resolve. An agent could call it, but not with confidence about when it is the correct choice.

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 for parameters, so the description must compensate. It references the 'deck' only implicitly and says nothing about the intended format or content of the deck string. The 'timeout_s' parameter is not mentioned at all. With only two parameters, this is a significant omission.

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 action ('Run'), the resource ('an arbitrary SPICE deck'), and the outcome ('return the parsed measurements'). It is specific and conveys the core function effectively. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'simulate_subcircuits', so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'simulate_subcircuits'. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and the generic description.

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