get_simulation_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only status, bounded queries (performance safety), and server-side response capping via 'apply_response_cap'. This goes beyond a simple 'get info' description, though it does not detail error behavior. It adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies return values and safety/response cap. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a low-complexity metadata getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description lists the return fields and mentions response capping, which is important context. It lacks error-handling details, but overall provides adequate context for a metadata retrieval tool.

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 does not explain the meaning of 'ctx' or 'dop_path'. The parameter names give some inference (dop_path is a path to a DOP node, ctx likely a context), but the description provides no explicit semantics, leaving a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 the tool '读取 DOP simulation 元数据' (read DOP simulation metadata) and lists specific return fields (frame/time/timestep/object_count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_dop_field (which returns a specific field) and get_dop_object (which returns object details).

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 implies safe, bounded usage ('只使用有界 DopSimulation 查询') and read-only operation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It offers context but lacks direct alternative guidance.

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