flexsim_get_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dual backend (FlexSim window vs controller.getParameter), the failure mode for missing parameters, and the non-creating guarantee. It does not mention permissions or any side effects, but for a read operation this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then backend behavior, then the arg. The description is appropriately short, though the hard line breaks and the redundant 'Args:' block add minor noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description covers the backend duality, the error case, and the create-vs-read boundary; only permission/context nuance is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only declares a minLength-1 string, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'name' refers to a parameter as defined in the model's Parameter Tables, which is useful but minimal for a single low-complexity parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (a model parameter defined in the model's Parameter Tables), which distinguishes it cleanly from flexsim_set_parameter and flexsim_ensure_parameter. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: a missing window parameter is an error and should be created with flexsim_ensure_parameter, which also clarifies this tool never creates. It gives clear context but no explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusions.

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