mike_run

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: runs headless, returns result file paths and engine log tail, requires MIKE+ and license, and warns of no undo. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information. Efficiently covers purpose, usage, and warnings.

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 simulation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, safety (run on copy), return info (file paths + log tail), and prerequisites (license).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: sqlite path should be a copy, simulation is optional with default, timeout default 1800. Adds value beyond schema.

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 'Run a MIKE+ simulation headless via the MIKE 1D engine', specifying the verb, resource, and mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on plotting, retrieving values, or model info.

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?

Explicitly mentions using the active simulation by default and the option to specify one, plus a strong warning to always run on a copy. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but siblings are distinct in purpose.

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