validate_netlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds extensive behavioral detail: it lists categories of issues caught (dangling nodes, bias degeneracies, duplicate directives), distinguishes warnings from errors, and explicitly states what is NOT checked (value tokens, undefined models). It also explains differences between LTspice and ngspice modes. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence adds value. It might benefit from bullets for readability, but it's appropriately sized given the tool's complexity and covers all critical information without 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, the description thoroughly covers purpose, checks, exclusions, parameter behavior, and return expectations. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to explain return format; the description emphasizes the empty-list meaning, which is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context for target_simulator by explaining which gates each simulator selection activates, going beyond the schema's basic enum. It also clarifies the path parameter's accepted extensions. This pushes the score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as a static circuit check gate that lints netlists/schematics before simulation, enumerating specific checks. It clearly distinguishes itself from simulation, creation, and export siblings by focusing on pre-flight validation.

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 specifies when to use (before simulation) and explains how the target_simulator parameter changes the set of checks applied. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for validation tasks.

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