get_simulator_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of filtering semantics, return format, or any side effects. The word 'all' could be seen as contradictory to the required filters, but this is more a clarity issue than a transparency issue.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, the use of 'all' is imprecise given the required filters, which slightly reduces structural quality. Still, it is well under the typical length and front-loaded.

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 simple list tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that platform and state are required filters, what the output list contains, or whether there are any limitations or pagination. The schema does provide parameter details, but the description leaves out essential contextual information about the return value and invocation prerequisites.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (platform and state) with enums, so schema coverage is 100%. The description 'Get a list of all simulators' adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('simulators'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_simulator_screenshot and check_supported_platforms. However, the phrase 'all simulators' is slightly misleading because the required parameters indicate the list is filtered by platform and state.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, despite the presence of sibling tools.

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