list_simulations

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains pagination mechanics ('after' parameter usage), recommends default perPage value (200), and clarifies that results are configurations rather than runs. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: distinguishing simulations from runs, providing usage recommendations, and explaining pagination. While efficient, the recommendation about perPage could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the read-only nature (annotations), comprehensive parameter documentation (schema), and lack of output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers key behavioral aspects like pagination and filtering scope, though it doesn't describe the return format or error conditions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing filtering capabilities and pagination behavior. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'list simulations in Paddle' and distinguishes simulations from simulation runs, providing specific context about what type of resource is being listed. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like 'list_simulation_runs' beyond the general distinction mentioned.

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 by mentioning filtering parameters and pagination, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_simulation' or 'list_simulation_runs'. It offers some operational context but lacks clear when/when-not directives.

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