long_running_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that work is bounded and that logs and progress notifications are streamed. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as whether the call blocks, whether work can be cancelled, how delay/steps affect runtime, or what the streaming notifications contain.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler. Every phrase ('simulate bounded work', 'stream log + progress notifications') contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool with no annotations and two undocumented parameters, the description does not fully equip an agent to call it correctly; parameter behavior and usage context remain underspecified.

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 for undocumented parameters, but it does not. 'Delay' and 'steps' remain unexplained in terms of units, defaults, acceptable ranges, or effect on the simulation, beyond the vague phrase 'bounded work'.

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 ('Simulate bounded work') and adds the observable behavior ('stream log + progress notifications'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (text summarization, file review, filesystem reads, server info), though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. The agent must infer from the name that it is a simulation/demo tool, and there is no mention of prerequisites or intended context.

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