Simulate failover invariants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the simulation is 'isolated deterministic' and explicitly noting that 'No live proxy is changed,' which reinforces the safety profile and clarifies that this is a non-mutating, isolated operation beyond what the annotations alone indicate.

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 a concise two-sentence structure that front-loads the action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence adds essential safety clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 that there are no parameters, the tool has a clear output schema (not shown, but present), and the annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the scope, and the key constraint that no live proxy is changed, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema is empty (schema coverage 100%). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional explanation is required.

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 a specific action ('Run an isolated deterministic simulation') on a specific resource (the two-failure timing and distinct-exit ranking invariants). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like install_failover or run_health_check by explicitly framing this as a simulation that does not affect the live proxy.

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 provides clear context: this is a simulation tool for invariants, and the phrase 'No live proxy is changed' implies it is safe to run in production or when testing without side effects. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose and safety cue give adequate guidance for when to use it.

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