runSimulation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.