step_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the action but doesn't disclose side effects, such as whether this cooks the simulation, whether it's reversible, or what happens if the node_path is invalid. It also doesn't mention whether this blocks until the simulation is advanced or if it's asynchronous. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is minimal and directly maps to the parameters. Every sentence earns its place, though the format could be slightly more compact.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what the agent should expect after calling it (e.g., does it return a status? does it cook the frame?), nor does it mention edge cases or prerequisites. An agent would need to infer a lot about how to use this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description lists both parameters (node_path and steps) with brief explanations, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names. However, it doesn't provide details like the expected format of node_path (e.g., '/obj/dopnet1') or constraints on steps (e.g., must be positive). The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Advance the simulation by a number of frames.' This clearly identifies the action and target. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like reset_simulation or get_simulation_info, but the action is specific enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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: it advances a simulation, which is distinct from resetting or querying simulation state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reset_simulation or get_simulation_info, nor does it mention prerequisites like the simulation needing to be set up or the node_path needing to point to a valid DOP network.

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