run_schematic

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation; the description adds real value beyond that: isolated run folder, no window, no overwrite of GUI datasets, unique output paths plus solver status, and explicit failure on ambiguous wiring. It stops short of noting that the `timeout` parameter governs the run or what happens on timeout.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then return contract. Little waste, though the supported-subset sentence is dense and the closing sentence slightly overlaps the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and failure behavior is covered. Still, for a non-idempotent compile-and-run tool with zero schema parameter documentation, the description omits path expectations and timeout semantics, leaving key invocation details unresolved.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: `path` is never explained (file path? project-relative? .5.9 file?) and `timeout` is not mentioned at all, despite its 1–300 range and 60s default. Only an indirect hint ("supported 5.9 schematic") gestures at what `path` points to.

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?

States a specific compound action (compile a 5.9 schematic, run simulator.exe headlessly in an isolated folder) with the supported component subset named. It is distinguishable from build_schematic/validate_schematic/preview_schematic in spirit, though it never names a sibling explicitly to contrast with.

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?

Use is implied by the described scope ('supported 5.9 schematic', 'documented R/C/L ... subset'), and it warns that unknown components fail. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus build_schematic, preview_schematic, start_job, or validate_schematic, so an agent must infer routing.

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