TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It successfully communicates the non-mutative nature ('without executing') and output type ('resource estimates and costs'), but lacks details on validation depth (does it check step syntax?), error handling for invalid steps, or whether simulation consumes rate limits.

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 consists of exactly two high-value sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core mechanism (simulation without execution), and the second specifies the return value. Every word earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return type ('resource estimates and costs'). It appropriately omits low-level parameter details already covered by the schema. A minor gap is the lack of detail on output structure or validation behavior, but this is sufficient for a 2-parameter preview tool.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Array of { action, params }', 'Resource acquisition strategy'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'multi-step operation' and 'resource estimates' which loosely map to the 'steps' and 'resource_strategy' parameters but adds no syntax details, format examples, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Simulate') with a clear resource ('multi-step operation') and explicitly distinguishes itself from execution-focused siblings like 'execute_swap' and 'execute_intent' via 'without executing.' It also previews the return value ('resource estimates and costs'), clearly positioning the tool in the validation/dry-run category.

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' provides clear context for when to use this tool (dry-run/pre-validation) versus the many execution-oriented siblings (create_order, transfer_trx, execute_intent). However, it does not explicitly map to specific alternatives or state prerequisites (e.g., 'use this before execute_swap').

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