optimize_scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating no physical commands are executed. It also adds a useful behavioral trait, determinism, which is not present in the annotations. This is good added context beyond structured metadata.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds a critical scoping constraint. Every word earns its place and there is no padding.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the tool still requires a nested scenario object with zero documented properties. The description gives no practical invocation guidance, and the relationship to validate_scenario and execute_plan is only implied. This is not enough for reliable, correct use.

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%, and neither the scenario object nor validate_proposal is explained in the description. The agent is left without any guidance on what shape the scenario object should take or what validate_proposal controls. The description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('compute') and a clear resource ('deterministic proposal'), and explicitly distinguishes the operation from physical execution. This makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like execute_plan, schedule_plan, and validate_scenario.

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 phrase 'without executing physical commands' clearly implies a planning or proposal-only usage, which helps separate it from execute-style siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over validate_scenario or explain_solution, leaving some selection judgment to the agent.

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