sim_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Deterministic' is a useful behavioral trait, but the description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, output behavior, or whether it is read-only. This is minimal transparency for a simulation tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'SIMULATE'. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

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?

The tool has five parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. There is no information about how to construct inputs, what horizon/period_label mean, or what a successful simulation returns. This is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. It mentions 'template' and 'free-form metrics model' as concepts, but provides no meaning for 'inputs', 'horizon', 'period_label', or the exact structure of the metrics objects. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 verb 'SIMULATE' and a clear resource 'what-if projection', specifying scope via 'template or free-form metrics model'. This distinguishes it from siblings like sim_sensitivity or sim_compare, though no explicit alternative is named.

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 implies usage for deterministic what-if projections and indicates two input modes (template, metrics). It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than direct.

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