List the four pre-built QueueSim scenarios. Returns key, title, and one-line description for each (Single Server, Coffee Shop, Grocery Checkout, Call Center). Call this when the user's problem matches one of the preset shapes — use describe_scenario for more detail and simulate_scenario to run one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenarios | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns key, title, and one-line description for each of a fixed set of four scenarios, implying deterministic output.
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 action and resource, and every sentence earns its place. Includes names, return fields, and usage guidance without redundancy.
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 simple list tool with no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No significant gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description focuses on output semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('four pre-built QueueSim scenarios'), and enumerates the exact set (Single Server, Coffee Shop, Grocery Checkout, Call Center). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by directing to describe_scenario for more detail and simulate_scenario to run one.
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?
Explicitly states when to call ('when the user's problem matches one of the preset shapes') and names alternatives for further actions. This provides clear context and differentiation from sibling tools.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: simulation (simulate_mmc, simulate_scenario, simulate_schedule), comparison (compare_analytical_vs_simulated, compare_separate_vs_pooled), inverse analysis (recommend_staffing), interpretation (interpret_result), education (explain_queueing_theory, explain_advanced_patterns), and scenario management (list_scenarios, describe_scenario). No two tools overlap significantly, and nuanced differences are explicitly documented (e.g., when to use simulate_mmc vs simulate_scenario).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: compare_*, describe_*, explain_*, interpret_*, list_*, recommend_*, simulate_*. Even compound names like compare_analytical_vs_simulated are clearly structured and match the pattern. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool earns its place. The set covers simulation, comparison, recommendation, interpretation, education, and scenario discovery without redundancy or bloat. The count feels right for a queueing theory teaching and simulation server.
The tool surface is complete for its stated domain: it offers multiple simulation modes (generic, preset, custom schedule), an inverse staffing finder, analytical-vs-simulation comparison, pooled-vs-separate comparison, interpretation, and educational explainers. There are no obvious dead ends—users can model, validate, understand, and optimize queueing scenarios. The intentional exclusion of advanced pattern simulation is addressed by explain_advanced_patterns pointing to ChiAha.
