iniciar_simulacion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'starts the simulation' but does not explain potential side effects (e.g., resets simulation time, throws error if already running, requires an active scene), nor does it mention return values or errors. This minimal disclosure falls short for an action tool.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and directly communicates the action. Perfect conciseness for a parameterless tool.

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 extremely minimal. It does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or interaction with other tools (e.g., must load a scene first). With no annotations and no output schema details provided in context, the description lacks sufficient information for an agent to fully understand the behavior and prerequisites. Given the simple action, a bit more context (e.g., 'starts or resumes simulation from current state') would be expected.

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, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 action: 'Inicia la simulación en CoppeliaSim' (starts the simulation in CoppeliaSim). It specifies a specific verb ('inicia') and resource ('simulación'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like detener_simulacion (stop), pausar_simulacion (pause), and estado_simulacion (state).

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a scene must be loaded), conditions (e.g., simulation must be stopped or paused), or any indication that this should be called before others. The description simply states the action without context.

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