stepSimulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavior and does convey that this tool mutates simulation state, including a destructive 'reset entirely' option. It also provides the crucial precondition of being in simulation mode. However, it leaves side effects of backward stepping and the exact reset outcome slightly implicit, relying on the schema for reset behavior.

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, each earning their place: the first states the full action space; the second states the one critical precondition. There is no filler, redundancy, or bloated explanation.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is nearly complete. It covers direction, steps, and the crucial setSimulationMode prerequisite, and the schema already explains the reset semantics. The only minor gap is a lack of detail on what counts as a 'step' in terms of network/PDU behavior, which is not necessary for invoking it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented with direction enum values, step bounds, and the default. The description only repeats direction words from the schema and adds no new semantic meaning to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because structured data handles parameter explanation.

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 gives a specific action verb ('step') and resource ('the simulation') with explicit modes: forward, backward, or reset. It clearly differentiates from sibling setSimulationMode (mode setup) by stating simulation mode must already be active. An agent can determine what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 states the precondition: 'PT must already be in simulation mode' and directs the agent to use setSimulationMode first. This is clear usage context, though it does not enumerate when to prefer alternatives like sendPdu or getSimulationStatus. For a state-stepping tool, the mode prerequisite is the most important guidance and is provided.

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