aurora_simulate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does disclose an important non-obvious behavior: it pauses rather than extrapolating when confidence intervals grow too wide, and it uses dynamics fitted and validated on the data. It does not clarify what a pause looks like in the output or whether the operation mutates anything, but the key behavioral guarantee is present.

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 with no filler. The core mechanism and purpose are front-loaded, and the pause behavior is integrated naturally rather than tacked on.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should be more self-sufficient. It leaves the required path parameter undefined, does not explain ci_pause_threshold, and does not describe what is returned when the tool pauses. It is enough to select the tool but not enough to confidently invoke it without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It gives meaning to n_steps and target_entity_id, but the required path parameter is never explained, and ci_pause_threshold is only indirectly inferable from the pause behavior rather than explicitly defined.

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 states a specific operation—simulate the system forward n_steps—and scopes it to 'trajectory questions' on a completed run, optionally for a specific node. It is clear enough to distinguish from analyze/explain, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with aurora_forecast, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context: trajectory questions on a completed run, with the optional target_entity_id instruction. It does not name alternative sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it lacks the explicit when-not/alternative guidance needed for a 5.

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