simulate_rung

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful limitation context: only the supported boolean mnemonic subset is evaluated, and it is not a full PLC-cycle simulation. This clarifies the tool's boundary without contradicting annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action, scope, and limitation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a 6-parameter simulation tool with nested objects. It does not explain how bits or state are used, what 'supported boolean mnemonic subset' includes, or any behavioral constraints beyond the one-sentence limitation.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. Although parameter names like rung_index and bits are self-explanatory at a basic level, the description adds nothing about expected values, relationships, or the state parameter's role, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses 'Evaluate' with a specific object ('supported boolean mnemonic subset') and explicitly scopes it to 'reasoning/testing only', distinguishing it from PLC-cycle simulation. It does not fully name the tool as simulating a rung's boolean output, but the intent is sufficiently clear and differentiates from siblings like analyze_rung or compile_structured_rung.

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 gives a clear usage context: use for reasoning/testing, not for PLC-cycle simulation. This is an explicit exclusion. However, it does not name alternative tools or describe prerequisites such as needing a loaded project or valid section/rung context.

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