open_sim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose and notes it isn't required before build_run_sim, but it does not describe potential side effects, prerequisites, or behavior when no simulator is available. It's enough for a simple utility but lacks depth.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and every word earns its place. There is no redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a key usage distinction relative to a sibling. However, it might have mentioned what 'open' implies (e.g., launching Simulator.app) to be fully self-contained, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description correctly does not discuss parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Open' with resource 'simulator frontend' and clarifies its purpose ('for visibility and manual workflows'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'build_run_sim' by stating it is not required before that workflow, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly gives when to use ('for visibility and manual workflows') and when not to use ('Not required before simulator build-and-run'), naming the specific sibling (build_run_sim) as an alternative. This provides clear guidance beyond just stating the action.

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