project_executable

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals crucial behaviors: runs real ngspice, is additive (existing nodes never modified), guarantees NO-PHANTOM links, and is non-destructive in dry-run mode. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent a full safety profile.

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 information-dense yet well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding essential behavior details, parameter explanation, and return format. Every sentence earns its place, including the LONG-RUNNING warning and NO-PHANTOM guarantee. The Args/Returns section is a clear, efficient format.

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 the tool's complexity and minimal schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, side effects, safety, long-running nature, dry-run behavior, the one parameter, and the precise return JSON structure. It leaves no significant gap for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'apply' is not described in the schema beyond its title. The description compensates fully by explaining 'True to write the projection; False (default) for a dry-run preview', which adds rich semantic meaning beyond the structured field.

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 verb and resource: it 'Build[s] + project[s]' validated executable-circuit specimens onto the knowledge graph, specifically adding Specimen/ClaimCard nodes and REALIZES/GROUNDS links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retract_executable and query_executable by describing its additive build/projection role.

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 gives practical usage context: it warns that simulations are long-running, defaults to dry-run mode (apply=False), and explains when apply=True is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the usage signals are clear enough for selection.

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