validateLtspiceMeasurements

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.