rs_start_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavior: the call blocks on detected RAPID errors unless force=true. It does not say whether the block is a thrown error or a returned status, whether it is idempotent when the simulation is already running, or what controller/motors state is required.

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?

One short sentence plus a clause; the action is front-loaded and the blocking condition and override follow immediately. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the failure condition, and how to bypass it. It leaves open the preconditions for a start (controller state, motors on) and what a successful call returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'force' parameter is fully documented as 'Skip safety check and force start even with errors (default: false)'. The description only restates the same override semantics, adding no new format or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Start') and resource ('RobotStudio simulation'), with the parenthetical '(Play)' disambiguating the exact simulation mode. Against siblings like rs_stop_simulation, rs_pause_simulation, and rs_reset_simulation, the action is immediately distinguishable.

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 establishes the condition under which the call will fail (RAPID errors detected) and the escape hatch (force=true to override), which effectively tells the agent when to use the force path. It stops short of naming an alternative or saying what to do first, such as calling rs_get_execution_errors or rs_check_safety before starting.

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