lvs_netgen

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool compares netlists and reports match/mismatch, and explicitly says what it does not do (DRC), but it does not mention potential side effects, error behavior, or whether it writes any files. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then noting limitations and related tools. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover expected outputs; it does by mentioning 'match/mismatch with net/device counts.' It also references related tools (extract_magic, DRC) to provide broader context. The parameter descriptions in the schema cover the specifics, making the overall context complete.

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 100%, so all parameters have basic descriptions. The tool description adds context about the relationship between schematic and layout netlists (e.g., 'use extract_magic to derive a layout netlist first') but does not go beyond the schema in explaining individual parameters. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Compares two SPICE netlists with Netgen batch LVS and reports match/mismatch with net/device counts,' which names a specific verb, resource, and output. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'use extract_magic to derive a layout netlist first' and 'Does not do DRC.'

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Compares netlists only') and when to use alternatives ('use extract_magic to derive a layout netlist first', 'Does not do DRC'). It names sibling tools and the conditions for using them, providing clear guidance.

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