extract_magic

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the extraction function and the tech file caveat, but does not mention side effects such as output file creation or whether the input layout is modified. This 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences cover purpose and a key caveat. No redundant words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description gives enough context for correct usage. It explains the core function and the critical tech file requirement, while the schema provides parameter details. Could mention output behavior but is not necessary for basic invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline applies. The tech_file parameter's importance is highlighted, but other parameters rely on schema definitions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extracts') and a specific resource ('SPICE netlist from layout') along with the method ('Magic batch mode (ext2spice lvs)'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like drc_klayout and lvs_netgen.

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?

Provides meaningful usage context by noting that generic technology works for flow plumbing but a PDK tech file is required for device-accurate extraction. Does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the limitation is clearly communicated.

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