view_simulation_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: interactive viewer, searchable, browsable with table-of-contents sidebar. It also notes the need for SQL output. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise at three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states core purpose, second details return format, third adds prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and no superfluous content exists.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the main purpose and prerequisite adequately. It could mention performance considerations for large reports or that the viewer is read-only, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a browsing tool.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, 0 parameters leads to a baseline of 4. The description correctly does not attempt to add parameter semantics.

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 browses the full EnergyPlus tabular report in an interactive viewer, specifying it returns all tabular data organized by report, section, and table. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_simulation_reports or query_simulation_table, which have overlapping functionality.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (a completed simulation with SQL output), giving clear context for when to use. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., if only a specific table is needed) or mention of alternatives like query_simulation_table.

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