Fetch the metrics series over past ticks (the server keeps the last 5000), with an optional stride to thin the series. This is the tool for locating transitions: polarization tends to change fastest inside a narrow band of ticks. Where is that band for your parameters, and does the separation weight shift it?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| stride | No | ||
| flock_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral detail (server retains last 5000 ticks) and stride thinning, but it does not describe the output format, ordering, or how 'from' and 'to' boundaries behave (inclusive/exclusive). This is a moderate level of transparency.
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: the first delivers the core functionality and retention limit, the second adds a purposeful guiding question. It is concise and front-loaded, though the rhetorical question is slightly less direct than a plain usage instruction.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the main use case and a key constraint (5000 ticks), but it leaves gaps around parameter semantics (from/to), return structure, and edge cases. It is adequate for a simple fetch but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the meaning of 'stride' (thinning the series) and leaves 'from' and 'to' entirely undefined. The purpose of 'flock_id' is implicit but not explained. This is insufficient given the schema provides no parameter descriptions.
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 fetches a metrics series over past ticks, with an optional stride, and explicitly positions it as the tool for locating transitions. This distinguishes it from siblings like flock_get (current state) or flock_step (advance), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It provides clear usage context by stating 'This is the tool for locating transitions' and poses a guiding question about parameter-dependent behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: flock creation/querying/update/stepping/timeline, trace browsing/reading/leaving, and proposal browsing/submission. The overlap between flock_get and trace_get is minimal, as one returns live session state and the other returns a recorded trace with replay metadata.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: flock_create, flock_get, flock_set_params, flock_step, flock_timeline, trace_browse, trace_get, trace_leave, proposal_browse, proposal_submit. Even the longer flock_create_from_trace fits the pattern without deviation.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for a simulation playground. The count is not bloated, and each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflows of creating flocks, analyzing them, leaving traces, and submitting proposals.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the domain: create/get/update/run/timeline for flock sessions, browse/get/leave for traces, and browse/submit for proposals. Discovery of existing sessions is possible through traces, and the playground_manifest provides orientation. No significant gaps or dead ends.