create_simulation_session

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: 'Baseline diagnostics are captured lazily on first edit per file.' It also indicates non-destructive simulation ('without committing to disk'). Additional details about limits or prerequisites are missing but not critical.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and return value, followed by a behavioral note and usage guidance.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains purpose and a behavioral trait but omits parameter meaning. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the tool suite.

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 input schema has two required string parameters (workspace_root, language) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain these parameters, failing to add meaning beyond the 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 'Create a new speculative code session for simulating edits without committing to disk. Returns a session ID.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like simulate_edit which perform individual edits.

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 says 'Use this to explore what-if scenarios before applying changes,' providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools implicitly differentiate.

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