run_simulation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about fatal/severe errors and that a clean exit does not guarantee physically reasonable results, which is beyond annotation capabilities.

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 three concise paragraphs: purpose, result interpretation, and preconditions/side effects/next step. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, error interpretation, and next steps. It is complete for an experienced user without over-explaining.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking parameters to preconditions (e.g., weather_file or design_day) and explaining the simulation flow, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Execute EnergyPlus on the loaded model — the authoritative runtime validation gate.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_model_integrity or validate_model.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: 'model loaded; weather file set via download_weather_file, or design_day=True.' Also specifies side effects and next step, showing when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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