getPduResults

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' communicates a non-mutating operation, statuses are enumerated, and the simulation-scoped state is disclosed. It does not discuss edge cases like running before any simulation step, but this is not a significant omission for this tool.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: a front-loaded definition, a clear usage directive, and a compact parameter tip. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the tool's purpose, expected usage timing, and the return fields sufficiently. It does not describe formatting or behavior when no PDUs have been produced, but for this scope it is nearly 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?

The schema already fully describes the types parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the practical intent of the filter: showing only ICMP/TCP and hiding STP/DTP background noise.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the outcome of PDUs in the current simulation', and enumerates the fields returned (source, destination, traffic type, status). It distinguishes itself from sibling simulation tools by framing the tool as the post-step verification read.

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 explicitly instructs when to call the tool: 'Call after stepSimulation to verify connectivity.' It also gives a concrete filtering guideline for ignoring STP/DTP background noise, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use the tool.

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