Create simulation

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description correctly indicates a creation operation without destructive side effects. It elaborates on simulation behaviors (e.g., 'feedback loop displaced by an evolving noise flow field') but does not detail state changes or side effects beyond creation.

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 no fluff, front-loading the purpose and efficiently conveying simulation types and usage alternatives.

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?

The description fails to specify what is returned or created (e.g., a self-contained component). Given no output schema and 5 optional parameters, it could better explain the outcome and parameter effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds context about the Decay knob but does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.

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 specifies that the tool builds a GPU simulation and lists three distinct types (reaction_diffusion, slime, fluid) with brief behavioral explanations for each. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_generative_art by targeting specific simulation scenarios.

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 explicitly directs users to create_generative_art for more procedural techniques, providing clear context for when not to use this tool. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to choose each simulation type, though the type descriptions partially compensate.

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