list_simulations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: not whether results are paginated or truncated at a default, not the ordering, and not the shape of a returned simulation. The only hint at read-only behavior comes from the name 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 short sentences, no filler, with the tool's action front-loaded and the entity definition immediately after. Every sentence 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?

This is a simple single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a tool sitting among half a dozen simulation-related listers, it should say what a call returns in aggregate and how it relates to those siblings.

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% and the single optional limit parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default of 50 and maximum of 1000. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Lists simulations") and the second sentence defines the entity as a scenario+personality pair, which implicitly separates it from list_simulation_runs and list_simulation_personalities. It stops short of naming those siblings outright, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of list_simulation_runs, list_simulation_suites, or the personality/scenario listers, all of which appear in the sibling set. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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