simscale_page_state

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool reads headings, notices, and interactive controls, and explicitly guarantees it does not expose passwords or cookies — a security-relevant trait. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which only state that it is non-mutating and idempotent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb. It is appropriately sized, contains no fluff, and every phrase adds value (e.g., 'without exposing passwords or cookies' is a meaningful qualifier).

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 simple one-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose well. However, it does not clarify the return format or the meaning of max_items, and there is no output schema to compensate. This makes it adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand the full behavior without further inference.

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 one parameter (max_items) but no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what 'items' refers to and how the limit affects results. Since the description was supposed to compensate for the missing schema documentation, it fails to provide meaningful parameter semantics.

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 "Read" and clearly identifies the resource: the current SimScale page's headings, notices, and visible interactive controls. It also explicitly states what is excluded (passwords and cookies), which distinguishes it from other tools like simscape_screenshot or simscape_navigate. This is a clear, specific, and non-tautological statement.

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 implies its usage as a read-only observation tool, especially since it is surrounded by action-oriented siblings like simscale_click and simscale_fill. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., screenshot) or provide exclusions for when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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