get_simulation_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and lists the returned state fields. It also exposes an important behavioral gotcha about step_simulation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention any access or timing constraints for get_simulation_state itself.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and return contents are front-loaded, and the caveat is placed secondary. Every word earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated. The description covers what state is returned and a key usage caveat. It would be more complete if it also clarified when to use this versus get_runtime_status or get_physics_state, but the current level is adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters, but it does not mention command_id or idempotency_key at all. The schema only provides names and defaults, leaving the agent without meaningful semantic guidance for these 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current simulation state') and enumerates the exact contents: timeline status, simulation time, and physics dt. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling step_simulation by clarifying that stepping does not require a running timeline.

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 provides clear context about what the tool returns and adds a practical exclusion: 'step_simulation does NOT require a running timeline — do not play just to step.' It does not explicitly compare with get_runtime_status or get_physics_state, but the guidance is enough for most selection decisions.

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