step_simulation

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. It states the basic action (advancing simulation) but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is reversible, the meaning of 'path', or how it interacts with simulation state—leaving significant ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action without waste.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'path' refers to, what num_steps does precisely, or how this tool fits with simulation workflows, leaving the agent to guess.

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 the description does not name or explain either parameter. The phrase 'number of frames' hints at num_steps, but 'path' is entirely unexplained, and the schema itself only provides minimal titles without descriptions.

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 ('step') and identifies the resource ('simulation forward by a number of frames'), making the action clear. It distinguishes implicitly from sibling tools like reset_simulation and get_simulation_info, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: you use this to advance a simulation forward. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over reset_simulation or other simulation tools, and no mention of prerequisites or context.

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