step_simulation

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral side effects: it changes the current frame, triggers dependency graph cooking, generates/replaces DOP cache, rejects frames <= 0, and does not enter the undo group. This level of detail fully compensates for missing annotations and gives the agent critical execution expectations.

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 compact yet information-dense. The first sentence states the purpose and key constraints, the second describes the mechanism, and the third discloses side effects. No filler or repetition; every sentence contributes meaningful information, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 absence of an output schema and rich behavioral disclosure, the description is nearly complete for agent decision-making. It covers what happens, side effects, and constraints. The only gaps are the undefined 'ctx' parameter and lack of explicit mention of return values, but these are not critical for a simulation-stepping tool that performs a state-changing action.

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 description adds meaning to 'frames' (number of frames to advance, must be > 0) and implicitly links 'dop_path' to the DOP node being cooked. However, 'ctx' remains unexplained, and with schema coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates. It improves clarity for two params but leaves a significant gap for the third.

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's purpose: advancing a DOP simulation by a number of frames. It provides specific implementation details (hou.setTime + dop_node.cook) and explicitly distinguishes itself from merely setting the frame or cooking generically. The verb '推进' (advance) and resource 'DOP模拟' are specific and unambiguous.

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 the usage context: advancing DOP simulations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like set_frame, cook_node, or reset_simulation, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

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