pt_fast_forward

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

The annotations establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context that it advances simulator time to allow boot, STP, or command completion, but it does not explain whether the call blocks, how much time advances, or what happens on return.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The bilingual duplication adds length without extra semantic detail, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves important behavioral details implicit, such as whether it returns immediately or after completion. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Advance simulator time') and lists concrete purposes: boot, STP, and command completion. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like pt_ping or pt_status, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 phrase 'for boot, STP or command completion' implies when the tool is useful, but it does not explicitly say when to invoke it versus checking status or waiting. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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