run_quality_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the tool runs a simulation and returns results, but omits any side effects, performance implications, or auth requirements. The scope of 'all hydraulic results' is vague.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-line args section. The main action is front-loaded, and every word adds value. No unnecessary 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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are covered. The description mentions including hydraulic results and the need to configure quality type, but does not clarify how this tool relates to the sibling 'run_full_simulation' or what distinguishes it from a hydraulic-only simulation. This lack of differentiation reduces completeness.

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 only parameter 'network_id' is described as 'Session id of the network to simulate', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title 'Network Id'. With 0% schema coverage, this compensates adequately.

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 clearly states it runs a full water-quality simulation and returns time-series results, including node/link quality concentrations plus hydraulic results. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'run_full_simulation', which could cause confusion, but the focus on quality simulation is distinct from 'run_hydraulic_simulation'.

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 provides a prerequisite: configure quality type with 'set_quality_type' before running. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'run_hydraulic_simulation' or 'run_full_simulation', and gives no exclusions.

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