swmm_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses writing output files and auto-detecting outfall node when omitted, but lacks detail on side effects like file overwriting, error handling, or runtime. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding key auto-detection detail. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits important context such as return value format, error conditions, typical runtime, and details about output file structure. It is insufficient for fully understanding tool behavior.

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 low (33%), so description must compensate. It explains the 'node' parameter's auto-detection behavior and mentions 'inp' and 'runDir' by context. However, parameters like 'rptName' and 'outName' are not described beyond their presence in file names, leaving some semantics unclear.

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 runs swmm5 on an INP file and writes output files into runDir. It mentions specific outputs (rpt, out, manifest.json) and distinguishes from siblings like swmm_compare, swmm_continuity, and swmm_peak by focusing on simulation execution.

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 implies usage for running a simulation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided, though the sibling names offer indirect context.

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