sim_status

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 effectively communicates the return payload composition (time, scope, state) but omits operational details such as whether the call is read-only, blocking behavior, or error scenarios when the simulator is disconnected.

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 efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without filler. Every word serves to identify the operation ('Get'), target ('simulation status'), and return value contents ('time, scope, state'). It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource identifier.

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 simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information needed for invocation. It identifies the key data fields returned, allowing agents to determine utility without exhaustively listing implementation details that belong in the output schema.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification since no arguments are accepted. No parameter semantics need to be added beyond the empty schema definition.

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 'Get current simulation status' clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_signal_value or sim_run by specifying it returns metadata fields (time, scope, state) rather than signal data or execution control. The specificity of the returned fields helps agents select this for status checks over other operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_signal_value or control commands such as sim_run. It does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an active simulator connection via connect_simulator. No exclusions or error conditions are documented.

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