simulate_infrastructure_attack

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: simulated event injection, the 5-phase pipeline, return of a ProofLink receipt, required scope, governance policy, and sandbox-only restriction. This goes beyond basic mutation and provides critical safety and expected output context.

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 two focused sentences plus a brief scope/policy sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, simulation details, sandbox restriction, and security requirements. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers expected return (ProofLink receipt with 5 phases), preconditions (scope, governance), and behavioral constraints (sandbox only). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%; the single parameter attack_type is fully described in the schema with enum and default. The description lists the enum values but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's verb (Trigger), resource (simulated infrastructure attack on the iTechSmart break-it sandbox), and the specific simulation flow (injects OOMKilled/connection_exhausted/disk_full/crashloop, runs the UAIO loop, returns ProofLink receipt). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing sandbox-only simulation and the UAIO demonstration context.

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?

Explicitly says 'SANDBOX ONLY — no production systems are affected', which serves as a strong when-not to use in production. It also specifies required scope (digitaltwin:simulate:read) and mentions governance by Arbiter policy, giving clear prerequisites. Though no alternatives are named, the context of demonstrating the UAIO loop provides a clear use case.

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