get_simulation_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether the tool triggers a cook, what data it returns, how errors are handled, or any side effects. The minimal detail does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the verb. It is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail; however, the dimension rewards brevity and structure, and the sentence earns its place even though it is under-specified.

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?

The description is far from complete. With no output schema, no annotations, and only vague purpose, it leaves the agent without essential context about what 'simulation info' includes, what the output looks like, and how the path parameter should be used. Given the many sibling DOP tools, this is insufficient.

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 compensate. The description mentions 'DOP network', giving a partial hint that the 'path' parameter likely points to a DOP network, but it does not explain the expected format, required syntax, or further semantics. This adds only marginal value over the bare 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('simulation info from a DOP network'), but 'simulation info' is vague and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_dop_object, get_dop_field, or get_sim_memory_usage, which could all be considered simulation info. The purpose is recognizable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it should be used or when other DOP-related tools would be more appropriate. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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