Sim status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by naming the data source ('read from the engine log'), disclosing health flag thresholds (nan=0, Tmax ≤ 2500 K, |u| < 50 m/s) and the exact returned metrics, which is useful behavioral context.

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 purpose and tightly packed; every enumerated field earns its place because no output schema exists to document return values. It is a single dense run-on sentence that would be more scannable as a list, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, thresholds and log source. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or trust the result is missing.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden to carry; baseline is 4.

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 ('Status of the current / last fire simulation') and scopes it to 'this app session', then enumerates the exact fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from sim_start, sim_stop and sim_log_tail without opening a 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?

Implied usage (poll simulation progress/health) is clear from the field list, and the 'current / last ... of this app session' phrasing scopes it. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. sim_log_tail, get_simulation_metrics, results_detect) and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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