getSimulatorStatus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does NOT report active streams, explains why fields were removed, and describes the freshness advisory. This is thorough and honest about limitations.

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 informative but verbose (around 150 words). It front-loads the main purpose, but contains detailed explanations that could be shortened or moved to separate documentation. It earns its sentences but lacks conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (phase, hardware-ready, roles, testVideos, freshness advisory) and what it does not return. It is complete for an agent to understand what information the tool provides.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly describe the sessionId parameter beyond context. While the parameter is simple and inferable from the tool purpose, the description misses an opportunity to add explicit meaning, such as format or source.

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 a clear verb-resource structure ('Read a live simulator session's current state') and lists specific return fields. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like getEventLog, helping the agent select the right tool.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'USE during testing to confirm...' and 'DON'T USE for event traces (use getEventLog)'. It also explains when to check for stale connections, giving clear context for appropriate use.

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