estado_simulacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully carry the behavioral transparency burden. It states only that it queries simulation state, but does not disclose whether this is a safe, non-mutating operation, what the output format is, or potential side effects. The available output schema might add some structure, but the description itself is minimal.

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, clear sentence: 'Consulta si la simulación está detenida, corriendo o pausada.' It contains no filler and immediately states the tool's purpose. For a simple tool with no parameters, this is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could benefit from mentioning the three possible states explicitly in a structured way, and possibly referencing the output schema to clarify return values. It does not address potential error conditions or when the simulation might be unavailable.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly focuses on the tool's function rather than parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 as specified in the rubric for 0-parameter tools.

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 purpose: to query the simulation status (stopped, running, or paused). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like iniciar/detener/pausar, the verb 'consulta' and the resource 'simulación' make the function clear enough. Lacks mention of alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other simulation control tools. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only alternative to tools like iniciar_simulacion or detener_simulacion, nor does it suggest appropriate context. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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