list_tasks

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the call is independent of the current run, renders no images, consumes no step budget, and does not alter a running episode. These are exactly the side-effect and cost traits an agent needs before calling in an interactive simulation.

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?

Front-loads the most important constraint (independent of the current run) and then organizes the rest by mode, with no filler sentences. Slightly dense and could be tightened, but every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly documents return contents for both modes (suites and counts; task_index, instruction, n_init_states) and explains n_init_states inline. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out what omitting 'suite' yields (suite names, per-suite task counts, total) versus what passing it yields (task_index, instruction, n_init_states). That is meaningful added semantics, though it does not cover type/format constraints.

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 ('List the tasks FakeSim offers') and immediately distinguishes the two invocation modes (no argument = suite overview; with suite = per-task detail). It is clearly separable from siblings like reset_task and observe.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'Start here, pick a suite, then look inside it' and 'Pass the chosen suite and task_index to reset_task to start.' It names the downstream tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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