step_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether the simulation must be initialized, whether stepping is reversible, permission requirements, or what state changes occur.

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, stating the action first and then documenting the two arguments. It is appropriately sized, with no irrelevant filler.

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 simulation-stepping mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete. It lacks prerequisite state, side-effect warnings, and invocation context, leaving an agent without enough behavioral detail.

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, and it does explain that node_path is a DOP network node path and steps is a number of frames. However, it does not add constraints such as the schema's default of 1 or whether steps must be positive.

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. It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling simulation tools such as reset_simulation or get_simulation_info.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies that it is for stepping a simulation, but it neither names alternatives nor states conditions or exclusions.

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