sim_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool simulates and compares 2-3 scenarios, omitting any details about side effects, prerequisites, output format, or limits—leaving the agent with little understanding of what the tool actually does beyond its basic function.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the 'SIMULATE' label, with no wasted words. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It omits parameter meanings, expected outputs, and relationship to sibling simulation tools, providing only a bare-bones function statement.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly references the 'scenarios' parameter by adding the 2-3 count constraint. It does not explain 'goal', 'horizon', or 'compare_metric', so most parameters remain semantically undefined.

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 core action—comparing 2-3 scenarios side by side—and the 'SIMULATE' prefix establishes the simulation domain, distinguishing it from decision or calculation tools. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like sim_run, but the core purpose is specific and clear.

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 phrase 'Compare 2-3 scenarios side by side' implies the tool is for side-by-side comparison of a small number of scenarios, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. This is minimal implied usage context, not explicit direction.

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