Get simulation metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that the tool is only meaningful in live mode with a running simulation, but does not say what is returned (or raised) when no simulation is running.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the live-mode caveat is well placed, and the metric list is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-010, GEN-016, SIM-002 — bulc_knowledge_search' block is opaque boilerplate that adds clutter without aiding invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics in place of one. It is nearly complete for a zero-argument read tool, missing only the failure/empty behavior when no simulation is active.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The field list in the description describes return payload, not inputs, so it adds no parameter semantics — but none are needed.

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?

States a specific verb + resource (get LIVE simulation runtime metrics) and enumerates exactly which runtime quantities come back (HRR, Tmax, velocities, dt/cfl, ms/step, VRAM). An agent can distinguish it from sim_status, sim_log_tail, or fire_results_summary without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — 'if a simulation is running' and 'only meaningful in live mode' — which tells the agent when the call is valid. It stops short of naming alternatives (sim_status, sim_log_tail) for the non-live case, so no explicit when-not routing is provided.

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