sim_restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the time reset aspect but omits side effects (e.g., whether waveforms are cleared, signal values reset, or checkpoints affected) and safety characteristics that would help an agent understand the operation's impact.

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 consists of a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word ('Restart', 'the simulation', 'from time 0') conveys essential information about the action, target, and scope.

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 tool's conceptual simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is sufficiently complete for basic invocation. However, given the lack of annotations and the state-changing nature of the operation in a complex simulation environment, it could benefit from brief mention of prerequisites or side effects.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. Per scoring guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 provides a specific verb ('Restart'), clear resource ('the simulation'), and scope ('from time 0') that distinguishes it from siblings like restore_checkpoint (which restores arbitrary saved states) and sim_run (which continues execution). It precisely defines the temporal scope of the operation.

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?

While 'from time 0' implies this returns to initial conditions, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus restore_checkpoint or prerequisites (e.g., whether the simulator must be stopped first). Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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