pt_fast_forward

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether this mutates lab state, whether it is reversible, whether it blocks, or what happens when the clock is already advanced — all relevant for a time-manipulation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action comes first and the parenthetical adds useful scope 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?

With no output schema, near-empty annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves key gaps: what 'times' controls, what state changes occur, and what the tool returns. Adequate for identifying the tool, insufficient for calling it confidently.

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?

There is one parameter ('times') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether 'times' means seconds, a multiplier, or a repeat count, which directly affects invocation correctness.

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 gives a specific verb ('Fast-forward') and resource ('PT's realtime clock') plus a parenthetical naming the concrete effects (STP, OSPF/EIGRP convergence, DHCP). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so it is clearly distinguishable. Minor ambiguity remains about whether the 'realtime clock' is the simulation clock or a device clock.

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 mention of STP/OSPF/EIGRP convergence and DHCP implies the use case (avoiding long protocol timers in a lab), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., pt_simulation) for advancing time differently.

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