sim_run

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clarifies that timeout refers to MCP response timeout (not simulation duration), implying blocking behavior. Explains empty duration behavior. Missing: side effects, idempotency, or output schema contents.

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?

Front-loaded with clear purpose statement. Args section is structured and information-dense. No redundant text, though 'optionally' in first sentence slightly duplicates the optional nature evident in schema defaults.

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?

Parameters well-covered despite poor schema. However, given 24 sibling tools and complex simulation domain, description should distinguish from run_debugger_mode and sim_restart. Output schema exists but description gives no hint about returned data (simulation time? status?).

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, description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: duration includes format examples (100ns, 1us) and empty-string semantics; timeout clarifies it is MCP-level (not simulation) and explains the 600s default rationale.

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?

States 'Run the simulation' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like sim_stop and sim_status, but fails to differentiate from run_debugger_mode which is also a 'run' 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?

Provides implicit guidance via 'Empty = run until breakpoint or end' explaining when to omit duration. Mentions gate-level sim context for timeout default. However, lacks explicit comparison to sim_restart or run_debugger_mode for when to use each.

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