openLtspiceUi

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.