restore_checkpoint

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. While it states the simulation is restored, it fails to clarify critical side effects: whether this stops a running simulation, destroys unsaved current state, or requires specific simulator connection status first.

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 brief with a clear purpose statement followed by Args documentation. The structure is efficient, though the docstring-style 'Args:' format is slightly rigid compared to integrated prose.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The single parameter is documented despite schema gaps. However, for a state-mutating simulation tool, the absence of behavioral warnings (destructive nature, state loss) leaves significant gaps in contextual completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description successfully compensates by explaining that 'name' is a 'Checkpoint name' and crucially documenting that empty string means 'last saved checkpoint'—semantic meaning absent from the raw schema.

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 a specific verb ('Restore') with clear resources ('simulation', 'checkpoint'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'save_checkpoint' and 'sim_restart' by indicating it loads previous state rather than saving or restarting fresh.

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 explains the default behavior when 'name' is empty ('Empty = last saved checkpoint'), which guides usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'sim_restart' or what prerequisites exist (e.g., requiring a previous save).

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