sim_list_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'List' inherently indicates a read-only operation, and the description explicitly states the output includes 'every scenario template with inputs and outputs,' providing clear expectation of the result. However, it does not disclose details such as ordering, pagination, or potential performance implications, which is a minor gap.

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 extremely concise and to the point. The 'SIMULATE.' prefix adds a category label but does not harm clarity; the core sentence 'List every scenario template with inputs and outputs' is efficient and front-loaded.

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 that this is a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information: what it lists (scenario templates) and what it includes (inputs and outputs). It lacks any further detail on return format, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 has zero parameters, and the description confirms that no input is required. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for a tool with no parameters, as there is no ambiguity about required inputs.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' on the resource 'scenario template' and specifies the scope as 'every' with 'inputs and outputs.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sim_run, which executes simulations rather than listing templates.

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. It does not mention that this is a discovery tool to be used before running simulations with sim_run, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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