reset_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only says 'reset to its initial state,' implying mutation but not stating whether it recooks the simulation, clears caches, affects downstream nodes, or is reversible. This is a notable gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence summary followed by a simple argument note. It contains no unnecessary text, though it is too sparse to fully compensate for missing context.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but it is a destructive reset operation with no annotations. The description is missing side-effect disclosure and typical usage context, such as how it differs from step_simulation or when resetting is appropriate. An agent would need to guess important behavioral details.

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 coverageages, and the description adds only 'DOP network node path' for the single node_path parameter. This provides some domain context beyond the schema's 'Node Path' title, but no format, examples, or constraints are given, leaving its meaning only partially clarified.

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 states a specific verb ('Reset') and resource ('simulation') and identifies the required DOP network node path. It clearly conveys that the tool returns a simulation to its initial state, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like step_simulation or clear_cache.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'use this before re-running a sim' or 'not for stepping frames'; an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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