Simulate fault

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the fault is treated as having started two minutes ago, it mutates simulator state, and returns a fault object with timing fields. This adds value to the readOnlyHint=false annotation without 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?

The description is concise, with two clear paragraphs: purpose and parameter list in the first, behavioral nuance and return format in the second. Every sentence adds value, and information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with temporal effects, non-trivial return), the description provides purpose, parameters, behavioral context, and return structure. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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% with good descriptions. The description restates parameters and defaults, and adds the crucial timing behavior ('started two minutes ago') that affects how duration_seconds interacts with telemetry. This goes beyond schema, but doesn't add syntax details.

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 clearly states the tool injects a fault on a device, making it visible to get_telemetry and get_anomalies. The verb 'Inject' and resource 'fault on a device' are specific, and the purpose distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools.

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 explains that the tool is for making faults appear in telemetry and anomalies, and explicitly states it is not read only. While it doesn't list explicit when-not-to-use conditions, the context of siblings and the mutation warning sufficiently guide usage.

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