dev_inspect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the simulation does not execute the call, returns specific outputs (results, gas, effects), and requires no wallet. This is sufficient behavioral transparency for a non-destructive simulation tool. It could mention that no state changes occur, but the description is clear enough.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and key differentiators. Every word contributes valuable information with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity of a simulation tool with 4 parameters (all well-documented in schema) and no output schema, the description sufficiently mentions return types (results, gas, effects). It lacks explicit mention of no side-effects, but 'without executing it' implies non-destructive behavior. Adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall context of simulation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 verb 'Simulate' and the resource 'Move call', with key differentiators: 'without executing it', 'returns results, gas cost, and effects', and 'No wallet needed'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_call (which executes) and dry_run_transaction (similar but not explicitly compared).

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 usage for testing without execution ('Simulate... without executing it') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dry_run_transaction or move_call. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer context.

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