Simulate an intervention scenario against current exposure to assess its impact on risk, attack surface, and cost.
Simulate one intervention scenario against current exposure state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph | Yes | ||
| scenario | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Simulate' hints at non-mutating hypothetical evaluation, but the description never confirms whether state is modified, whether it is read-only, what inputs may be invalid, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 single sentence is short and front-loaded with the main action, so it is not bloated. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it earns a middling score rather than a high one.
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 two complex nested object parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine the required shape of scenario, how it relates to the graph, or what the simulation returns. Given the complexity signals, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.
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 0% and both parameters are bare untyped objects, yet the description adds nothing about the structure or meaning of 'graph' and 'scenario'. Besides their names, an agent has zero information about what to pass — this is the low-coverage case where the description was required to compensate, and it entirely fails to do so.
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 names a specific verb ('simulate') and resource ('one intervention scenario against current exposure state'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools exposure_baseline and exposure_rank. It is slightly terse about what the simulation produces, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose exposure_simulate over exposure_baseline or exposure_rank, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the graph must first be initialized). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.