simaris_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safe behavior or mention any side effects, rate limits, or other traits. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single sentence that is clear, direct, and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core functionality without any waste.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does (check target and locations) and implies that the result includes both the target and recommended scanning locations. No further details are necessary for this query tool.

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% for the single 'platform' parameter, with a detailed description including valid values and alias mappings. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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: checking today's Cephalon Simaris synthesis target and recommended scanning locations. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Simaris synthesis target'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'world_state' and 'active_fissures' which serve different functions.

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 that the tool should be used when the user wants Simaris target information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving it to the agent to infer context.

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