simulatte_ask_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the output and does not mention any side effects, permissions, or potential issues like rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely performs a query.

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 concise with two clear sentences, front-loading the main action and output without any unnecessary words.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (cited answer with themes and sources). The parameter count is low and schema coverage complete, but potential error conditions or limitations are not mentioned, leaving minor gaps.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds a helpful example for 'query' but does not significantly extend the schema's documentation, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's action ('Ask a question across your entire Simulatte research history'), the method ('semantic search'), and the output ('cited answer with themes and source study references'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulatte_get_results.

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 provides a usage context ('Great for synthesizing findings across multiple studies') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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