operating_point

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, the description discloses important behaviors: SI units where declared, uniform naming across simulators, automatic .options logopinfo, and the critical warning that a solve failure taints all values and appears in 'warnings'. This is valuable context not available from annotations alone.

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 well structured: front-loaded purpose, then scope details, then a warning. It is dense and every sentence contributes, though the first paragraph packs many clauses into a single long sentence, slightly reducing readability.

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?

The description covers tool purpose, simulator sources, device filtering, units, and failure-mode warnings. With a rich input schema and an output schema present, nothing critical appears missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema descriptions already cover all 7 parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics: passing device='M1' yields that device's params plus terminal currents in one call, and explains the uniform naming and unit behavior. This exceeds baseline without needing to restate schema details.

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 'Read DC operating point data' and enumerates exactly what is included: node voltages, branch currents, and small-signal params. It clearly distinguishes this from waveform, simulation summary, and other sibling tools by specifying the operating-point scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (reading DC operating point from LTspice log or ngspice traces, after run_simulation auto-adds .options logopinfo). It also explains the device-filter use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer another tool or when not to use this one.

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