picus_get_simulation

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

With no annotations, description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions timestamps format and the relation to other tools, but does not disclose read-only nature, potential side effects, or authentication needs.

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?

Description is very concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and simple parameter set, the description covers the key response aspects (run list, timestamps) and usage flow. Could list more response fields, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter (simulation_id) with 0% schema coverage. Description adds minimal meaning beyond the name, just implying it's an identifier. No constraints or format details given.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets full detail for one simulation including run list. The verb 'get' and resource 'simulation detail' are specific. Distinct from sibling tools like picus_get_run_result and picus_list_simulations.

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?

Explains how to use the run list with picus_get_run_result and timestamp format. Provides clear context for chaining, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like picus_get_template.

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