simulation_mode

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return contents (mode, simulation clock, recorded-event count), but omits meaningful behavior such as whether switching modes resets or preserves the simulation clock and recorded events.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the return summary second. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple single-boolean toggle with a full output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It does not address side effects of switching modes (clock reset, event retention) or point to the sibling tools used to advance or inspect simulation state.

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 boolean 'on' parameter, and the schema already documents that true=Simulation and false=Realtime. The description's mention of switching modes adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Switch between Realtime and Simulation mode') and clarifies the return payload. It is clear on its own, though it does not name or contrast with closely related siblings such as simulation_step or fast_forward.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulation_step, fast_forward, or watch_events, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to switch modes. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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