ltspice-mcp

by xuio

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.32.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ways to create a schematic (createSchematic, createSchematicFromNetlist, createSchematicFromTemplate, createIntentCircuit) and multiple simulation entry points (simulateNetlist, simulateNetlistFile, simulateSchematicFile, runSimulation, queueSimulationJob). Despite detailed descriptions, the high number of similar tools hinders clear disambiguation for an agent.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern (e.g., getBandwidth, createSchematic, listJobs). There are minor deviations like 'daemonDoctor' and 'autoCleanSchematicLayout', but overall the naming is predictable and consistent.
Tool Count2/5
With 71 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. For a domain like circuit simulation, 10-20 tools would be well-scoped. The excessive number implies redundancy and complexity, making it cumbersome for agents to navigate.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of tasks: schematic creation, simulation execution, result analysis, job management, UI interaction, and telemetry. There are minor gaps (e.g., lack of a direct 'delete schematic' tool), but overall it is quite complete for the intended domain.
Average 3/5 across 71 of 71 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions retrieving information but does not specify whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or any authentication or rate limit details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks substance. It under-specifies the tool's functionality and fails to justify its brevity with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and only a vague description, the tool is not adequately described for an AI agent to use correctly, despite having an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (plot, run_id, raw_path, step_index). It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about vectors in a plot', which is clear but vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'getVectorData' or specify what 'detailed information' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'inspect' and 'suggest fix', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm or describe side effects, required permissions, or what happens if suggestions are applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks substance. It is not concise in the sense of being efficiently informative; it is under-specified and does not earn its limited space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters (1 required) and no parameter descriptions, the tool is severely incomplete. The output schema may document return values, but the input side is left completely to the agent's guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters (asc_path, render, settle_seconds, downscale_factor). The agent receives no help in understanding parameter meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool inspects schematic visual quality and suggests coordinate-level fixes. It distinguishes from siblings like autoCleanSchematicLayout (automatic cleaning) and lintSchematic (linting). However, 'coordinate-level fixes' is a bit vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like autoCleanSchematicLayout or validateSchematic. The description lacks explicit usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'in one call' but does not explain side effects, file creation, or prerequisites. Parameters like show_ui and open_raw_after_run suggest UI behavior, but this is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too short for a tool with 6 parameters. While it is concise, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and does not earn its place with sufficient detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 params, no schema descriptions, presence of output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns, error handling, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. It fails to explain netlist_content format, circuit_name usage, ascii_raw, timeout_seconds, show_ui, or open_raw_after_run.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it writes a netlist and runs an LTspice batch simulation in one call, distinguishing it from separate steps. It specifies the verb 'write' and 'run' and the resource 'netlist' and 'LTspice batch simulation'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like simulateNetlistFile or runSimulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context indicators to help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Request cancellation' without detailing side effects, error states, or whether force parameter changes behavior (e.g., immediate vs graceful stop).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise (one sentence), it is under-specified for a tool with 2 parameters and an output schema. The briefness sacrifices necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and 2 parameters, the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or the difference between cancelling queued vs running jobs. Incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no information about parameters. The schema has two parameters (job_id, force) with no explanation of their semantics or relationship.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request cancellation') and the target resource ('a queued/running job'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like queueSimulationJob or listJobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using force=true for immediate vs gentle cancellation). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, long-running, or requires permissions, only stating the function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a possible output schema, the description lacks context on what the health check entails, the format of 'actionable recommendations', and how this tool relates to siblings like getCaptureHealth or getRecentErrors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the two boolean parameters (include_recent_warnings, deep_checks) at all. The agent must infer meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'run' and the resource 'daemon/system health check' with an outcome of returning recommendations. It is distinct from siblings like getCaptureHealth or getRecentErrors, but lacks detail on what exactly is checked.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. The description is a single sentence with no context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'status and basic counts' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the ZIP is missing, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action, yet incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what 'status' entails or what 'basic counts' refer to. Given the number of sibling tools, more context is needed for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the purpose or usage of the 'lib_zip_path' parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill it. Needed compensation is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get LTspice symbol library ZIP status and basic counts' which clearly indicates the verb (get) and the resource (LTspice symbol library ZIP). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getLtspiceStatus by specifying the library and ZIP aspect, though 'basic counts' remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getLtspiceStatus or getLtspiceSymbolInfo. The description lacks context for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'rolling performance telemetry' but does not explain what 'rolling' means (e.g., time window, aggregation), potential side effects, required permissions, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded. However, it is too brief to be useful; it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. While it avoids fluff, it does not earn its place as a complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about the tool's operation. It does not explain the meaning of 'rolling telemetry', the expected output format (even though schema exists), or how to interpret results. For a telemetry tool, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention the single parameter 'tool_name' or explain its purpose and format. The parameter name suggests filtering, but no details are provided. This leaves the agent guessing how to use the parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns rolling performance telemetry for MCP tools. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and names the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resetToolTelemetry' which has a different purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools list includes many other tools, this lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions interpolation but omits default behavior, data limits, error cases, or performance implications. The tool has 8 parameters but the description gives no insight into their impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise—one sentence. No redundant content, but for an 8-parameter tool the brevity sacrifices informativeness. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no param documentation, the description leaves the agent with almost no understanding of how to use the tool effectively. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only mentions 'vectors' and 'explicit scale points' (points) implicitly. It does not explain plot, run_id, raw_path, step_index, representation, or max_points. The description adds negligible value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves data for vectors with optional interpolation at scale points. It distinguishes from sibling 'getVectorsInfo' which likely returns metadata. However, 'data' is vague; could specify 'values' or 'samples'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like getVectorsInfo or getPlotNames. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behaviors. Only mentions parsing from library ZIP, but lacks details about read-only nature, error handling, performance considerations, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise (one sentence). However, it omits critical information, balancing brevity with adequacy. Not overly verbose but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values (despite output schema) or parameter behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (query, library, limit, lib_zip_path). Fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (list/search) and resource (LTspice symbols from library ZIP). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like 'listLtspiceLibraryEntries'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., getLtspiceSymbolInfo). The description implies usage for listing/searching but provides no exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'deterministic preset,' implying predictable output, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output format is. This is minimal transparency for a simple render tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence). However, conciseness should not come at the expense of informativeness. It is structured as a single declarative sentence, but it could include additional essential details without becoming overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the function of each parameter, the return value, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow of LTspice plot rendering.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description makes no mention of any parameters. With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain key parameters like 'preset', 'vectors', 'plot', etc. The single sentence adds no semantic value beyond the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'render' and resource 'plot image', and specifies the key constraint 'using a built-in deterministic preset.' This is specific enough, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool renderLtspicePlotImage, which likely renders custom plots. The name already conveys the preset aspect, so the description is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like renderLtspicePlotImage, generatePlotPresetSettings, or other rendering tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states the action but does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, read-only nature, or dependencies. For a scanning tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but fails to provide necessary detail given the tool's 6 parameters. It front-loads the core action but is too sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover how to use the parameters or the expected behavior. For a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. Parameters like run_id, log_path, search_paths are not explained, requiring the agent to infer from names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it scans LTspice log text for missing model/include/subcircuit issues. It specifies a specific action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with measurements or other aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not describe prerequisites or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Open an LTspice window once,' omitting critical details such as whether the session must be ended via 'endLtspiceRenderSession', whether it modifies global state, or if multiple sessions are allowed. The tool's side effects and lifecycle are not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action but is too sparse to cover necessary details. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, session lifecycle, or behavior, making it nearly unusable for an AI agent without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('path' or 'title_hint'). The agent has no indication of what 'path' refers to (e.g., file path, directory) or how 'title_hint' affects behavior. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's bare structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Open an LTspice window once for repeated image rendering,' which clearly identifies the action (open a window) and the resource (LTspice window) with a specific purpose (repeated image rendering). It distinguishes from siblings like 'openLtspiceUi' (general UI open) and 'endLtspiceRenderSession' (session end), though the phrase 'repeated image rendering' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'openLtspiceUi' or prerequisites such as needing a session before rendering. No exclusions or explicit context is given, leaving the agent unsure about proper invocation sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions setting a boolean without explaining effects on UI state, prerequisites, or side effects (e.g., whether it requires an open schematic).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but the grammatical issues ('opens reuse') reduce clarity. It could be restructured for better readability without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks sufficient context about when to set single window mode and what impact it has on the UI. A complete description would explain the behavior change.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
For the single boolean parameter 'enabled', the description adds some meaning by associating it with 'reuse a single live schematic path'. However, this is vague, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should be clearer to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool sets a boolean for single window behavior, but the phrasing 'opens reuse' is awkward and unclear. It distinguishes from siblings like setLtspiceUiEnabled, but the purpose is only moderately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setLtspiceUiEnabled or other UI tools. Absence of context leaves the agent uncertain about appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a destructive action (closing a window) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether unsaved changes are handled or if resources are released. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and the description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at 11 words, but it sacrifices essential details like usage context and parameter hints. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in ending a stateful session, the description omits prerequisites, return values (no output schema provided), and relations to other tools like 'startLtspiceRenderSession'. It is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'render_session_id' is not elaborated in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain what a render session ID is and how it is obtained, but it adds no value beyond the parameter's name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (close) and the resource (LTspice window associated with a render session). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like 'closeLtspiceWindow' by its focus on render sessions, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'closeLtspiceWindow'. The description lacks context, e.g., it should mention that the render session must be active or that the session ID comes from 'startLtspiceRenderSession'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions generating a file and returning parsed settings, but does not clarify file side effects (e.g., overwriting, disk usage), dependencies (e.g., simulation data), or the nature of the parsed output. The agent cannot infer important behavioral constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices helpful details. It is front-loaded with the core function, yet the brevity results in insufficient guidance for correct usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, optional settings), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the relationship to other plot tools, the generation process, or the structure of the parsed settings. Crucial context for an agent to use the tool effectively is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 14 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'vectors' implicitly, leaving the other 13 parameters (e.g., mode, axis limits, output path) unexplained. The agent has no insight into their meaning or usage beyond schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool generates an LTspice .plt file from vectors and returns parsed settings for debugging. It identifies the verb 'Generate', the resource 'LTspice .plt file', and the output purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generatePlotPresetSettings', but the resource name is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for invocation decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core computation, omitting side effects, required input format, output structure, error conditions, or permission requirements. The existence of an output schema is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too minimal for a tool with 7 parameters. It lacks structure such as parameter grouping, examples, or explicit formulation. While not verbose, it sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least list the key parameters and provide usage context. It does neither, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'vector' and 'drop_db' (via the name), but fails to explain the other 5 parameters (plot, run_id, raw_path, step_index, reference). Their purpose remains ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Compute -drop_db bandwidth') on a specific resource ('AC response vector'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getGainPhaseMargin or getSettlingTime. However, it does not elaborate on what bandwidth means (e.g., -3dB bandwidth) nor explicitly contrast with similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for similar measurements (e.g., getGainPhaseMargin), but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions optional query filtering but omits details like read-only nature, default limit of 200, or any side effects. Lacks transparency for a listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but omits critical parameter information. Passable for a simple tool but under-specified for three optional parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain parameter roles (query, limit, lib_zip_path), especially important since schema has no descriptions. Agent would need to guess or rely on sibling tool patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description only hints at query filtering without explaining format or purpose. No mention of limit or lib_zip_path parameters, leaving agents to infer from defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists LTspice symbol ZIP entries with file extension .asy, distinguishing it from sibling tools like listLtspiceSymbols which likely lists symbol names rather than ZIP entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listLtspiceSymbols or getLtspiceSymbolInfo. No context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the netlist is modified destructively, timeout behavior, UI aspects, or return format. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence, but it lacks necessary detail to be fully informative. It earns its place for brevity but not for completeness, balancing at a 3.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 params, no schema descriptions, many siblings, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the measurement object, output, or relation to other tools like 'validateLtspiceMeasurements'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters. It fails to explain required 'measurements' format, the difference between 'netlist_path' and 'netlist_content', or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Inject .meas directives into a netlist, run simulation, and parse measurement values' clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'runSimulation' and 'parseMeasResults' by combining multiple steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'runSimulation' for already prepared netlists or 'parseMeasResults' for parsing alone. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning quality analysis but does not state if the tool modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to convey the tool's complexity or how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the 7 parameters. It does not clarify how parameters like 'grid', 'settle_seconds', or 'downscale_factor' affect behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'auto-clean' and specifies the resource 'schematic layout', clearly stating the action and output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'inspectSchematicVisualQuality' which only inspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation), validation behavior, or outcome. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates, but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by listing all parameters or grouping optional ones.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description covers only the components parameter. Important details like output path, sheet size, and UI behavior are missing. Incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only describes the components parameter (required and optional fields), leaving the other 8 parameters (wires, directives, labels, circuit_name, output_path, sheet dimensions, open_ui) entirely undocumented. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an LTspice .asc schematic from structured component/wire/directive data, specifying required and optional component fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like createSchematicFromNetlist or createSchematicFromTemplate, which have different input sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no scenarios. The description only states what the tool does but not the context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states it 'summarizes capture health' without explaining what that entails, whether it has side effects, or what the output contains. The behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb. However, it is too brief to be useful, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, schema descriptions, and output schema details, the description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's functionality. It does not explain 'capture health' or parameter effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (limit, include_recent_events). The agent receives no additional meaning for the parameters, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Summarize' and the resource 'ScreenCapture/LTspice capture health' from 'in-process capture events'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getLtspiceStatus or getBandwidth by focusing specifically on capture health from capture events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or relate to sibling tools. Given many similar 'get' tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Compute', indicating a read operation, but fails to mention any side effects, data requirements, error conditions, or limitations. The minimal statement adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and is too brief to be maximally useful. It earns its place but fails to provide detail that would help an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 are covered, but the description omits essential context like expected input format (e.g., vector structure), prerequisites (e.g., an AC analysis must have been run), and possible error conditions. The description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter documentation exists in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (vector, plot, run_id, raw_path, step_index), leaving their semantics entirely ambiguous. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Compute' and the resource 'gain and phase margins from an AC loop-gain vector', making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like getBandwidth or getSettlingTime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent receives no context about when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'compute' without revealing side effects, data requirements, or operational context (e.g., whether it reads from a run, requires simulation results, or is read-only). Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but insufficiently covers the tool's functionality given 7 parameters. It is not verbose, but brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a tool of this complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context such as prerequisites, parameter roles, and usage scenarios. For a tool with 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is highly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings but does not. It adds no information about what 'vector', 'plot', 'run_id', 'raw_path', 'step_index', 'low_threshold_pct', or 'high_threshold_pct' represent or how they affect rise/fall time calculation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'compute' and the resource 'first rise/fall times' within the context of 'transient response'. It distinctly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like getBandwidth or getSettlingTime that compute other metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for transient simulation data), constraints, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files), required permissions, or return behavior. Only states the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence (11 words). It is not verbose, but could add more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters (1 required), no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema explanation, the description is severely incomplete for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (source_path, destination_name, models_dir). This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports a model file into the MCP workdir for reproducible .include usage. The verb 'import' and resource 'model file' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like loadCircuit or loadNetlistFromFile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., loadNetlistFromFile). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It only says 'Get status' but doesn't disclose what happens if job doesn't exist, or behavior for incomplete jobs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, but it omits critical information about parameters and usage. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description lacks context on input parameters and when to use. Incomplete for effective selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters (job_id, include_run). Their meaning and effect are left to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status for one simulation job'. It distinguishes from siblings like listJobs (list all) and getRunDetails (details of a run).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listJobs or getRunDetails. It's implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool loads a file as the current circuit, but does not disclose whether this overwrites unsaved changes, closes existing schematics, or requires any user confirmation. The brief description lacks important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (loading various file types into a circuit environment) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the impact on the current circuit state. Sibling tools like simulateNetlistFile require clear differentiation, which is only partially addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'filepath', is a string but the description adds no semantics beyond the schema (e.g., expected format, absolute vs relative, local vs remote, or validation rules). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it fails to provide any meaningful guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'load' and the resource 'netlist file' with a list of allowed extensions (.cir/.net/.sp/.spi/.sub/.lib/.txt). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like simulateNetlistFile (which simulates) and loadCircuit (which loads from other sources). However, it could be more explicit about the effect on the current circuit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., loadCircuit, simulateNetlistFile). It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the file path must be local or if relative paths are accepted. No context on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation and mentions downscale_factor. There is no information about side effects (e.g., file creation), required permissions, or what happens to the schematic file. The tool likely returns an image via MCP, but this is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, given the complexity (9 parameters), it could be more structured to include parameter groupings. Still, it avoids redundancy and unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required path semantics, optional output_path, dimensions, settle_seconds, or other settings. The agent would need to infer or experiment, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description explains only one parameter (downscale_factor). The other 8 parameters (asc_path, output_path, width, height, etc.) are not described at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving most parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Render an LTspice schematic (.asc) to an image', specifying the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling rendering tools (e.g., for plots or symbols) by mentioning the .asc file extension. However, it does not explain how the image is returned (e.g., inline data vs. resource URI), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like renderLtspicePlotImage or other rendering tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or use cases. The description only mentions one parameter (downscale_factor) but no context for when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'return aggregate metrics' but does not specify side effects, destructiveness, or performance characteristics. Lacks detail on what state changes occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence of 11 words, very concise. However, for a complex tool with many parameters, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description omits critical context like parameter relationships, mode differences, and usage examples. It is incomplete for a 17-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the 17 parameters. It does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs stepped or Monte-Carlo parameter studies and returns aggregate metrics. It specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'parameter studies', and distinguishes modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like runSimulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as runSimulation or runMeasAutomation. It does not explain conditions for choosing stepped vs Monte-Carlo mode or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states it runs a batch simulation but doesn't disclose whether it requires LTspice to be open, if it modifies files, blocks on completion, or error handling. For a batch simulation tool, minimal behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no waste, but it lacks sufficient detail for a tool with five parameters. Conciseness is positive, but it sacrifices completeness to the point of being barely informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has an output schema (not shown) but no description of return values. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., netlist existence, LTspice installation). Given the complexity of batch simulation with timeouts and UI options, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types. For five parameters, including timeout and UI options, the description provides no clarification on their purpose or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb "Run", resource "LTspice batch simulation", and scope "existing netlist path". It distinguishes from siblings like "simulateNetlist" (likely runs from memory) and "simulateSchematicFile" (different input type).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are multiple simulation-related tools (simulateNetlist, simulateSchematicFile, runSimulation, queueSimulationJob) with no differentiation provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions running a simulation and optional validation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, resource impact, or detailed behavior during simulation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise but lacking structure. It is short but omits critical information, so conciseness is not leveraged effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Even with an output schema present, it fails to cover parameter roles and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. Essential parameters like asc_path, ascii_raw, timeout_seconds, etc., are not described, leaving the agent without context for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Run' and resource 'LTspice batch simulation for an existing schematic (.asc) file', with mention of optional preflight validation. Distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's for batch simulation of .asc files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like runSimulation or queueSimulationJob. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only via 'Get', but does not confirm safety, side effects, or any required permissions. There is no mention of rate limits, data persistence, or other important behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is overly minimal. It lacks necessary details to be fully useful, so while it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place due to insufficient information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to clarify arguments, usage context, or return value, leaving agents without sufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should explain key parameters. It only names 'vectors' indirectly and omits details about 'plot', 'run_id', 'raw_path', 'step_index', and 'options'. The parameter names offer some hints, but the description adds no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action (Get), resource (local minima/maxima), and context (vectors). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like getBandwidth or getRiseFallTime by specifying a unique function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring simulation data or specific vector names, nor any indication of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not specify side effects, authorization needs, or limitations. Barely adds transparency beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness to add parameter or usage hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema exists, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't clarify what 'pin map and metadata' specifically includes or how parameters affect the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings (e.g., what 'symbol', 'include_source', 'source_max_chars', or 'lib_zip_path' are for). The sole phrase 'for a symbol in LTspice's lib.zip' hints at one parameter but is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get pin map and metadata for a symbol', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like listLtspiceSymbols (which lists symbols) and renderLtspiceSymbolImage (which renders an image).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state whether it modifies state, how recent logs are scanned, or any side effects. Lacks details on permissions or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action and output for even clearer scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, but the description does not clarify what constitutes an 'error entry' or the time range. Given four parameters go undocumented and no behavioral context, the description is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%: the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, log_count, include_warnings, log_dir). It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, which already has defaults but no descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans recent daemon logs and returns structured error entries. It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'daemon logs', and the output is structured error entries, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tailDaemonLog that return raw logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tailDaemonLog or daemonDoctor. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by breaking out parameter hints or usage notes while remaining brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers only the tool's general purpose. It lacks context on how parameters relate to the linting process, expected behavior, or integration with other tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'asc_path', 'strict', or the various thresholds, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs structural lint checks on a schematic and specifies examples (pin connectivity, dangling wires). This distinguishes it from siblings like validateSchematic and inspectSchematicVisualQuality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description is purely declarative without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it creates a file and marks it as current, but omits side effects like overwriting existing files, file naming conventions, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, efficient but lacking necessary details. Could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing description of return value (output schema exists but not explained) and edge cases. For a simple tool with two parameters, important details are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description does not explain what the 'netlist' parameter represents (file content vs path) or the role of 'circuit_name' (likely filename). No added semantics beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it creates a netlist file and marks it as the currently loaded circuit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like loadNetlistFromFile (loads existing file) and createSchematic (creates schematic).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like loadNetlistFromFile or createSchematicFromNetlist. Does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'adding includes and remapping' but does not disclose that the file is modified in-place, the meaning of the 'backup' parameter, or any side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's primary purpose without extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies files and has 5 parameters, the description is too brief. It lacks context about when to use this vs other netlist tools, the meaning of 'backup', and the overall workflow. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'include_files' and 'model_aliases/subckt_aliases' are used for the described operations, but does not explain 'netlist_path' or 'backup', and provides no details on how aliases are structured or used. Some value added but insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Patch' and the resource 'netlist model bindings', and specifies the actions 'adding includes and remapping model/subckt names'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like loadNetlistFromFile or simulateNetlistFile, but does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does without providing usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the response includes image content and metadata, but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether a session is required, state modifications, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and to the point. It could be slightly improved with better structure, but it is concise without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, return format details, or usage constraints, leaving significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 9 parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the property names in the schema. This is a critical gap for effective tool usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it renders an LTspice symbol to an image, using specific verb 'render' and resource 'LTspice symbol'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like renderLtspicePlotImage and renderLtspiceSchematicImage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other rendering functions, but the description does not explain when to render a symbol versus a plot or schematic. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, data source requirements, or whether it is read-only. For a compute tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be more informative without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values or how to specify the input vector, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at tolerance_percent and target_value, leaving six other parameters undocumented. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (compute settling time) and the resource (target within tolerance_percent band). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getBandwidth or getRiseFallTime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description is minimal and provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious read-only operation. It lacks information about rate limits, authentication requirements, or how failures are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly conveys the purpose without any superfluous words or structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 optional parameters, presence of an output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is too brief. It omits details about pagination, filtering behavior, and return format, making it incomplete for effective decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'limit', 'status', 'order_by', or 'include_history' do, leaving the agent uninformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action (List) and the resource (simulation jobs) and further specifies the scope (queued/running/completed), making it clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like cancelJob or queueSimulationJob.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jobStatus for a single job, listJobHistory for past jobs). No context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is particularly appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'read' implying no side effects, and explains that query is case-insensitive. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is idempotent, nor does it disclose any potential behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and uses bullet points for clarity. It is appropriately sized, though it could be more concise by including all parameter explanations without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of include_headings or max_chars, and the concept of 'interactive agent guidance' is vague. The presence of an output schema does not excuse missing parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters, but the description only explains section and query, omitting include_headings and max_chars. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides minimal meaning beyond the schema for half the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'AGENT_README.md', indicating what the tool does. It also briefly explains the parameters section and query. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though the siblings are all LTspice-related, making it distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It only lists parameter hints without any decision context, such as when to use section vs query or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence with no extraneous information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description is short, it covers the core function. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simple nature of the tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness regarding parameters and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters. The description adds no detail about parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use 'lines', 'log_path', or 'log_dir'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (return tail text) and the resource (active daemon log file). It uses a specific verb and noun, and distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are focused on circuit design and simulation tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it specify conditions or exclusions. The sibling list is extensive, but no comparative context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions return values (schematic and sidecar netlist paths, optional validation payload) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether the tool mutates state. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise but could be more structured by separating return values from the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 1 required) and lack of schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It partially covers outputs but does not explain how to use parameters like circuit_name, output_path, or placement_mode. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level information. It mentions 'intent templates' but does not explain the intent parameter or any other parameter (e.g., placement_mode, sheet_width). The agent is left with only parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a circuit from high-level intent templates, listing examples (filters, amplifier, regulator). This distinguishes it from siblings like createSchematic or createSchematicFromNetlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts where createIntentCircuit is preferred over createSchematicFromTemplate or listIntentCircuitTemplates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions creation from a template and two types, but omits details like whether it overwrites files, required permissions, error behavior, or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and adding relevant detail about template types. No extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema not explained, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot infer parameter usage, defaults, or expected outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description only indirectly references template_name and the two template types. It does not explain critical parameters like parameters, circuit_name, output_path, sheet dimensions, template_path, placement_mode, or open_ui, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an LTspice .asc schematic from a JSON template, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like createSchematicFromNetlist and createSchematic by mentioning the JSON template input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by listing two template types (netlist and spec), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createSchematicFromNetlist or createSchematic, nor does it provide any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'deterministic' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it modifies state. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded. However, it is too short given the parameter complexity, but conciseness is not penalized for lack of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description lacks context for optional parameters and does not clarify when to set them. Output schema exists but is not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (only titles). The description does not explain any parameter beyond the name 'preset', leaving six optional parameters completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Generate', the resource '.plt settings', and the qualifiers 'deterministic' and 'for a named preset', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'generatePlotSettings'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for generating .plt settings from a preset but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'generatePlotSettings' or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It lists sequential steps but omits failure handling, side effects, required permissions, or blocking behavior. For a composite tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key concept 'One-shot orchestration'. It is concise but could be slightly improved by listing steps more clearly. Nevertheless, it avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values, outputs, or what the tool produces. With 15 parameters and a complex orchestration, the description is far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., intent, assertions, clean_in_place). It fails to compensate for the schema gaps, leaving agents to guess parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as a one-shot orchestration combining create, lint, simulate, verify, clean, and inspect. This distinguishes it from individual sibling tools like createIntentCircuit or lintSchematic by emphasizing the composite nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a full workflow is desired via 'one-shot orchestration', but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auto-placement/routing and supported components, but does not explain error handling (e.g., unresolved symbols), file overwriting behavior, or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the key action and then list supported components, but it is already efficient without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and lack of parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify netlist format requirements, output behavior, or the significance of placement_mode. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the need to explain return values, but the parameter information gap remains critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It only indirectly references netlist_content and hints at placement_mode via 'auto-placement/routing'. Other parameters like circuit_name, output_path, sheet dimensions, and open_ui are unexplained, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an LTspice .asc schematic from a SPICE netlist using auto-placement/routing. It specifies supported components, distinguishing it from siblings like createSchematic (likely from scratch) and createSchematicFromTemplate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for netlist-to-schematic conversion but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like simulateNetlist or syncSchematicFromNetlistFile. It lists supported primitives but lacks exclusion criteria or context-dependent recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes what is listed, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, state requirements, or whether it is a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of eight words, no wasted words, and front-loads the purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what constitutes 'high-level circuit intent templates' and when to use this tool among many similar list tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information (none needed), but it accurately reflects the tool's function.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'high-level circuit intent templates and default parameters', distinguishing it from siblings like 'listSchematicTemplates'. The term 'high-level' adds some vagueness, but overall the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'listSchematicTemplates' or others. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'list' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is adequate. However, it does not confirm the absence of side effects or mention any potential impact, but given the standard semantics of 'list', this is minimally sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly restructured to also hint at parameters without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the return format is covered. However, the description does not explain the parameters or differentiate from sibling tools beyond the term 'archived'. For a simple list tool, the missing parameter guidance leaves the agent underinformed, especially since the schema has no parameter descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for the 'limit' or 'status' parameters. An agent cannot deduce the meaning of these parameters from the description alone, making it very difficult to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'archived (terminal) queue jobs retained across daemon restarts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like listJobs which likely handle current jobs. The specificity of 'archived' and 'retained across daemon restarts' leaves no ambiguity about what is being listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for listing historical or completed jobs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listJobs or listRuns. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or naming of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the term 'archived'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions the output type and core features (run_id resolution, step filtering, pane layout), but omits critical details like defaults for many parameters, limitations (e.g., max points), or side effects. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose and key features. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping options). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 23 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only a fraction of the parameter semantics and lacks details on return format, error conditions, or performance. The agent would need to infer most behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It only explains pane_layout, run_id, and step filtering, leaving 20+ parameters (e.g., mode, y_mode, width, height) completely unexplained. Minimal value added beyond parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Render' and the resource 'vectors from a RAW dataset to a plot image'. It distinguishes from siblings like renderLtspicePlotPresetImage (which uses presets) and renderLtspiceSchematicImage (which renders schematics, not plots).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints at usage by mentioning supports for run_id/raw_path resolution and step filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions simulation and reuse but does not detail the decision logic (when does it run vs reuse?), side effects (e.g., new run creation), error conditions, or authentication needs. The assertion types are well-described, but the overall behavioral model is incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, with a clear introductory sentence and a structured bullet list for assertion types. It is front-loaded and avoids repetition. A minor improvement could be to also list or reference the other parameters, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (12 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions or annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers assertions in depth but neglects most other parameters and does not mention the return format despite an output schema existing. The tool's full behavior is not adequately described for an AI agent to use it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'assertions' parameter structure and types but completely ignores the other 11 parameters such as netlist_path, run_id, measurements, timeout_seconds, etc. This leaves a major gap for the agent to understand how to use the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool combines running a simulation (or reusing a previous run) with evaluating assertion checks in one call. It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('verification plan'), and the context of sibling tools (especially runSimulation and individual get* tools) helps distinguish its purpose. No tautology or ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the tool runs simulation or reuses a run and evaluates assertions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over separate steps (like runSimulation then individual measurement tools) or mention prerequisites. The 'or reuse a run' option is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it reruns the netlist, implying state modification, but does not disclose side effects, data destruction, permissions needed, or performance impact. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, reducing the need to explain return values, but the description could still mention the nature of output (e.g., pass/fail, differences). Given the complexity (15 params, re-run simulation) and lack of behavioral details, completeness is adequate but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 15 parameters, including the required 'vector' or common defaults. The description adds zero value beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates parsed metric endpoints by rerunning the netlist and comparing LTspice's values to computed metrics. It distinguishes from siblings like parseMeasResults and runMeasAutomation by specifying the re-run and comparison behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after parsing metrics but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or references to alternatives like runMeasAutomation or parseMeasResults. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the iterative loop of validation, simulation, and fixing, which reveals key behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or detailed failure modes, making it adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and condition. Every word contributes value with no waste. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many siblings, iterative behavior), the description is too minimal. It lacks details on input/output, parameter roles, usage scenarios, and differentiation from other debugging tools. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and parameter explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level details. There are 11 parameters (e.g., 'auto_fix_preflight', 'model_search_paths') with no explanation of their meaning or effect. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: iteratively validate, simulate, and apply fixes to a schematic until it runs or stalls. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'lintSchematic' or 'validateSchematic' which do not automatically apply fixes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for automatic debugging but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. Given many sibling tools (e.g., 'simulateSchematicFile', 'lintSchematic'), more guidance would be beneficial, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The word 'Get' suggests read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. A 3 is appropriate as it likely implies read-only but lacks explicit safety disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the core purpose but omits important details about parameters, making it less useful than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values or how to interpret parameters like log_tail_lines. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description only mentions run_id, ignoring include_output and log_tail_lines. This leaves the agent without knowledge of these parameters' purpose, which is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets full details for a specific run_id or the latest run if omitted, distinguishing it from sibling tools like listRuns (which list runs) and other getters for specific attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: when needing full details for a run. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the brevity and sibling context make it clear enough. A small improvement would be to mention that for partial details, use other specific getters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the polling and regeneration behavior and mentions update events, but omits important details like blocking behavior, side effects on existing schematics, and requirements. It is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a polling tool that may have stateful behavior, the description is far from complete. It omits parameter explanations, prerequisites, error handling, and return format details beyond 'update events'. The output schema may help but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the 12 parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or rely on naming conventions. This severely hampers correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('poll a netlist file and regenerate schematic') and the resource ('netlist file' and 'schematic'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like syncSchematicFromNetlistFile by emphasizing polling and continuous monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for watching a netlist file over time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like one-time sync tools or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It discloses source (run log or log path) but not side effects, output format, or behavior when both parameters are provided. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. Could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters) but remains efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers core purpose but omits details like default behavior when both are null or the structure of returned data. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It hints at run_id and log_path via 'from a run log or explicit log path', but does not detail their roles, defaults, or mutual exclusivity. Provides basic meaning but insufficient without schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool parses LTspice .meas results from a run log or explicit path. The verb 'parse' and resource '.meas results' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validateLtspiceMeasurements' and 'runMeasAutomation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when to choose run_id vs log_path, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async behavior (return job id for polling/cancelation) but does not elaborate on error handling, timeout effects, or retries. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from a brief expansion on parameter usage without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not guide parameter selection, output handling (despite having an output schema), or integration with sibling tools like 'jobStatus' or 'cancelJob'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no explanations for the 7 parameters (e.g., netlist_path vs netlist_content, priority, timeout). The agent has no guidance on how to set these parameters, making this a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'queue' and resource 'simulation job', and adds the return value 'job id' for polling/cancellation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'runSimulation' or 'simulateNetlist' which likely execute synchronously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for asynchronous job submission requiring later status polling or cancellation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resolves and explains sidecar requirements, hinting at a read-only behavior, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or deeper behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the output contains (e.g., resolved file path, sidecar instructions). With two parameters and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about parameter details and return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters lack schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly explain asc_path or require_sidecar_on_macos; it only implicitly hints that asc_path relates to the file and require_sidecar_on_macos controls sidecar explanation. The agent gains minimal additional meaning beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('resolve') and refers to a resource ('which file simulateSchematicFile will execute'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulateSchematicFile itself. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before calling simulateSchematicFile, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses what the tool checks (components, ground, directives), which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it does not state whether the tool modifies anything or returns errors, leaving some uncertainty about effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states the primary purpose, second lists key checks. No redundant information. Every sentence provides useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its main validation areas. It could mention that results are provided via the output schema, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that asc_path refers to a .asc schematic file. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema's title. However, it does not detail path requirements (e.g., absolute vs relative) or expected format, so value added is modest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool validates a .asc schematic for simulation readiness. It lists specific checks (components, ground flag, simulation directives), which helps distinguish from siblings like lintSchematic that may check different aspects. However, it could more explicitly differentiate between validation and linting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lintSchematic or other verification tools. The context implies use before simulation, but no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the tool 'gets' status, implying a read operation, but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, latency, or side effects. It does not describe what the output contains beyond the vague 'status and configuration.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no redundancy or filler. It is maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists to document return values, the description is minimal and does not hint at the schema's contents. Given the tool's role in a large family, additional context (e.g., what 'status' entails) would aid selection, but the absence is partially compensated by the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter info. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately acknowledges that no inputs are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'LTspice executable status and server configuration,' specifying both the resource (executable status and server configuration) and the action (get). This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like getLtspiceLibraryStatus and getLtspiceUiStatus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given numerous sibling status tools (e.g., getLtspiceLibraryStatus, getLtspiceUiStatus), the description should indicate context for choice, but it does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read-like operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth needs, or performance implications. Lacks detail beyond basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no waste. Front-loads the action and resource effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It clarifies the data source and the operation. No need to describe return values since output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description hints that the optional template_path parameter may point to a user-provided JSON file, but does not explicitly state that omitting it uses built-in templates. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('available schematic templates'), specifying the source as 'built-in or user-provided JSON file'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listIntentCircuitTemplates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like listIntentCircuitTemplates or listLtspiceLibraryEntries. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions the use of Accessibility APIs, hinting at system-level interaction. However, it does not disclose potential prerequisites (e.g., accessibility permissions), failure modes (e.g., if LTspice is not running), or whether the tool can block. With no annotations, more transparency is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a concrete example. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (10) and lack of annotations or output schema description, the description is insufficient. It covers the tool's purpose but leaves critical parameter behavior and return value assumptions undocumented, increasing the risk of misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. For a tool with many parameters, the description provides no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (read visible LTspice window text), the method (macOS Accessibility APIs), and a specific use case (compare parser outputs against displayed text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `getLtspiceUiStatus` which do different things.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on when to use (comparing parser outputs to UI text) with an example (log windows). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for other UI-related tasks like `closeLtspiceWindow` or `openLtspiceUi`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the `command` parameter is ignored by LTspice, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation), blocking behavior, prerequisites, or error conditions. The timeout_seconds parameter hints at blocking, but more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core action, and the second adds a critical note about parameter compatibility. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (indicated by context), the description lacks details on return values, prerequisites, error handling, or long-running behavior. For a simulation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. It only explains the `command` parameter's ignored behavior. The other four parameters (ascii_raw, timeout_seconds, show_ui, open_raw_after_run) receive no explanation, leaving their meanings unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Run LTspice in batch mode for the currently loaded netlist.' It specifies the verb (run), resource (LTspice simulation), and scope (currently loaded netlist), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like queueSimulationJob or simulateNetlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a netlist is loaded, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulateNetlist or queueSimulationJob. No exclusions or explicit context guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the basic action but does not disclose persistence, impact on running simulations, or return value. Adequate for a simple setter but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean, output schema exists), the description is mostly sufficient. Could mention whether the setting is persistent or session-scoped.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single boolean parameter 'enabled' is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description implies it controls UI behavior but does not clarify what true/false mean (e.g., show or hide UI).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool sets the default UI behavior for simulation calls when show_ui is omitted. It distinguishes from siblings like getLtspiceUiStatus (reads) and openLtspiceUi (opens UI).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., setting show_ui per call). No mention of prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool lists plot names, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions needed, or limitations. It is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is brief but adequate for a simple listing operation. However, it lacks explanation of how run_id and raw_path relate, and does not specify what plot names are or how they are returned, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with LTspice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must explain the parameters. The description mentions 'RAW file' and 'run' but does not explicitly map to the parameters run_id and raw_path. The agent cannot infer the parameter meanings without additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (LTspice plot names), and the scope (in one RAW file or all RAW files from a run). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getVectorsInfo which list vector names, not plot names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to list plot names from RAW files), but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools. It is adequate for basic guidance but lacks depth for complex decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is deterministic, implying consistent output, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or details about the output format. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value description is partially mitigated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of five words with no extraneous content. Every word is necessary and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema present), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks usage context and does not explain what 'deterministic' means or how it differs from sibling tools, which limits completeness for an agent navigating many alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidance, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameter information is needed from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'built-in deterministic LTspice plot presets.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generatePlotPresetSettings' and 'renderLtspicePlotPresetImage' by focusing on listing, not generating or rendering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering, but does not state read-only nature, auth requirements, or side effects. Adequate for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler. The key action and ordering are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema and one simple parameter, the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core purpose, though lacks parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its effect, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'simulation runs', and the ordering 'newest first'. It clearly distinguishes from other list tools like listJobs or listSchematicTemplates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is for recent simulation runs, but provides no guidance on when to use this over alternatives like listJobs or listJobHistory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions opening UI and path resolution, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or behavior on invalid inputs. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently explains the two usage modes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed in the input), the description covers the basic usage but omits details like return value, error handling, or prerequisites. For a simple UI-opening tool, it is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides only parameter titles. The description adds context by explaining how the three parameters interact: direct path usage vs. resolution from run_id and target. It mentions target values (netlist, raw, log) not defined in the schema, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Open LTspice UI on a selected artifact.' It specifies two usage modes (direct path or resolution from run_id/target), distinguishing it from sibling tools like closeLtspiceWindow or setLtspiceUiEnabled.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear conditions for using the tool: direct path vs. resolution from run_id and target with specific target values (netlist, raw, log). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'reset' but does not mention that this action is destructive (erases historical telemetry), whether it requires special permissions, or any side effects on ongoing metrics. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and to the point. Every word contributes: 'Reset' is the action, 'rolling performance telemetry' is the resource, and 'for one tool or all tools' clarifies the scope. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core action and scope. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps in what the agent needs to know for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema partly compensates for missing return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and defines one parameter 'tool_name' with anyOf string/null. The description adds critical meaning by implying that when 'tool_name' is null (default), it resets all tools, and when provided as a string, it resets that specific tool. This goes beyond the schema alone, though it could be more explicit about the parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'reset' and the resource 'rolling performance telemetry', and explicitly indicates the scope ('for one tool or all tools'). This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'getToolTelemetry' which retrieves telemetry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for resetting telemetry, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The sibling 'getToolTelemetry' suggests when to get vs reset, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the sync condition and metadata storage but omits side effects (overwriting), permission needs, or behavior when source unchanged, and does not reference the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema and multiple siblings, the description lacks parameter guidance, behavioral details, and output description, making it incomplete for a tool with nine parameters and potential overwrite behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the nine parameters (netlist_path, circuit_name, etc.), leaving the agent to infer semantics from names only, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool regenerates a schematic from a netlist file only when source content changes, with a specific verb (regenerate) and resource (schematic from netlist file), distinguishing it from siblings like createSchematicFromNetlist and watchSchematicFromNetlistFile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use (only when source changed, for fast deterministic syncing) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, though the condition is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Core behavior is stated (closes windows matching substring), but there is no mention of error handling, what happens if no windows match, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and is functional but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no extra words. Front-loaded with action and key detail (substring matching). Exceeds conciseness requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the essential functionality. Could mention return behavior but not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description clarifies that title_hint is used for substring matching, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (close windows) and the matching criterion (title containing title_hint). It distinguishes itself from siblings like openLtspiceUi and setLtspiceUiEnabled.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The description only states the function without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It uses the vague term 'appears to be running' without elaborating on the check mechanism. While it is a simple read operation, more transparency about what constitutes 'appears' would improve clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple status check. It tells what the tool returns without needing elaboration on return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description need not explain them. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to add beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a boolean indicating whether the LTspice UI appears to be running on the machine. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('LTspice UI status'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getLtspiceLibraryStatus or getLtspiceStatus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getLtspiceStatus). Usage is implied by the description, but no when-not-to-use or context provided. Among many sibling tools, some guidance would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ltspice-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xuio/ltspice-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xuio/ltspice-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ltspice-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xuio/ltspice-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xuio/ltspice-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xuio/ltspice-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server