get_sim_app_path_name_ws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'Gets' (implying read-only) and lists required parameters, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like what happens if the simulator isn't found, whether this requires specific permissions, error conditions, or what the return value looks like (path format, existence verification).

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing requirements and an example. The IMPORTANT note is front-loaded, and the example is helpful. However, the second sentence is somewhat long and could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and required parameters well, but lacks behavioral context about errors, permissions, and return format. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it should provide more guidance on what the tool actually returns and how it behaves.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 4 required parameters in the IMPORTANT note and providing an example with specific values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't add significant semantic context.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets'), resource ('app bundle path'), and scope ('for a simulator by name using a workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' by specifying it uses a workspace and simulator name rather than ID or project.

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 usage context through the required parameters list and example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_name_proj' or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws'. It provides some guidance through the example format but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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