simulation_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content (running state, simulated time, end period), which is genuinely useful behavioral information, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, required working directory, or error conditions when no simulation is loaded.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core question (is the EventController running) is front-loaded. It could only be improved by adding a short routing clause rather than by trimming.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the minimum of enumerating the three reported values, which is adequate for a simple status probe. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the absence of any parameter or context guidance leaves real 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?

Both parameters (work_dir, model_root) have 0% schema description coverage and are never mentioned in the description. The agent is left to guess whether these are paths to a project/model and whether they are optional (required count is 0) or needed to locate the running simulation.

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 verb ('Report') and enumerates the exact facts returned: whether the EventController runs, the simulated time, and the end period. That makes it distinguishable from mutation siblings like simulation_start, simulation_stop, and simulation_reset, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with model_status.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart of simulation_run/start/stop, and is given nothing to decide between this and the sibling model_status (which likely reports model rather than simulation state).

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