simulate_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool reconstructs past context, compares it with current understanding, and reveals previously unknown information, implying a non-destructive analysis. However, it does not address potential side effects or permissions.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a memorable title followed by a clear explanation and a brief Args list. No unnecessary detail is present.

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 the tool has an output schema (covering return values), the description sufficiently covers purpose and parameters. It does not clarify how project_path is used or mention any preconditions, but for a 2-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that defines decision_id as 'Memory ID of the decision to scry' and project_path as 'Project root,' providing semantic meaning that the bare schema lacks. With 0% schema description coverage, this full compensation earns a 5.

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 opens with 'Temporal Scrying -- replay a past decision with current knowledge,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It further explains the process of reconstructing context and revealing new insights, making it distinct from sibling tools like reflect or explore.

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 establishes a clear context for use (replaying past decisions with current knowledge) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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