Run transient simulation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: it explains that simulation stops after the target time, returns partial data if wallTimeoutMs is hit, and that wall-clock can differ from simulated time. It does not explicitly describe side effects on circuit state beyond what fromReset implies, but the disclosure is still substantial.

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 tightly structured: first sentence states the core operation, second defines the output and probe syntax, third explains timing behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the key scoping constraint (SIMULATED time) is front-loaded.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers probe semantics, return shape, timeout behavior, and the sim-speed relationship. It could add a bit more detail about the exact output format or default reset behavior, but these are at least hinted at or covered by the schema.

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 80%, so some parameter meaning is already provided. The description adds real value by defining probe syntax and semantics: node probes read labeled voltage, element probes read current/voltageDiff/power with indices from circuit_state/circuit_load. This goes beyond the bare schema and compensates for the harder-to-infer parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Run the simulation'), the resource (a transient simulation), and the core distinguishing scope (simulated time with probe sampling). It also identifies the return type as time-series data, so it is clear how this tool differs from siblings like circuit_load or circuit_state.

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 gives useful context, including how probe indices relate to circuit_state/circuit_load and how sim-speed affects wall-clock time. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over an alternative or what would be a better tool for a different task, such as sim_control.

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