simulate_days_passing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (advancing the clock, triggering one scheduler poll) and explains the demo purpose, which implies potential cascading effects like nudges or escalations. It could add more detail about exact side effects or return values, but it provides a solid behavioral model.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides context and rationale. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The key information is 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?

For a one-parameter demo tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism (clock advance, scheduler poll), the purpose (demo lifecycle), and the contrast with production. It does not explicitly state what the agent sees after calling it, but the context of 'making the lifecycle observable' implies a sufficient outcome. Overall, it is complete for typical use.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('Number of days to fast-forward'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description reiterates 'N days' but adds no new semantic detail (e.g., allowed range, units, or consequences of large values) beyond what the schema already states.

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's action ('Advances the internal clock by N days and runs one scheduler poll') and identifies it as a demo control, distinguishing it from production scheduler behavior and sibling tools like reset_demo and send_nudge. This specificity makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 frames the tool as a demo control for making a week of chasing observable, and contrasts with production where the scheduler polls on a real interval. This tells the agent when to use it (live demos) and implicitly not to rely on it in production. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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