simulation_step

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

Annotations already cover the read/write and safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses that reset clears the event list and that Simulation mode is required. There is mild tension between 'clears the event list' and destructiveHint=false, but since the cleared state is simulation event data rather than persistent user content, this is a nuance rather than a contradiction.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the three possible actions and their meanings, with the prerequisite appended last. No filler, though the parenthetical 'like Capture/Forward' is only meaningful to a user already familiar with the UI.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action set and the mode prerequisite adequately for a two-parameter tool. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation (fast_forward, list_simulation_events), which leaves a small inference burden on the agent.

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%, so both the action enum and the `times` parameter (default 1, max 200) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the three action meanings but adds nothing about the step count, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and 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?

The description names specific actions (advance forward, go back, reset the event list) against a clear resource (the simulation), and the 'Capture/Forward' analogy pins down the exact domain semantics. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling fast_forward, so an agent still has to guess which stepping tool to pick.

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?

'Needs Simulation mode' gives a genuine prerequisite for use, which is more than most definitions offer. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over fast_forward, list_simulation_events, or watch_events, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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