get_simulation

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about retrieving configuration vs. run data, which helps the agent understand the scope. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this adds moderate value.

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 two sentences with zero waste—front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying context. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal scanning.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., what configuration data is included). Given the complexity is low, this is adequate but leaves a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'simulationId' fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'retrieve a simulation from Paddle by its ID' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_simulation_run' by clarifying it's for configuration vs. run. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_simulations' or 'create_simulation', which slightly limits full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context by contrasting with 'simulation run' tools, suggesting this is for configuration retrieval. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'list_simulations' or 'create_simulation', nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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