ik_simulate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that source is compiled before running, that the target is selected from the source, and that output includes register dumps, peek bytes, and an optional trace. It also notes interrupt injection capability. This is solid but not exhaustive; it doesn't mention error behavior, side effects, or the absence of real hardware effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: input modes, output contents, and interrupt capability. No fluff or repetition; excellent structure.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a three-sentence description is insufficient. It outlines the main flow but omits details on interrupt injection parameters, limits, dump behavior, and peek length. Agents may struggle to construct complex simulation requests with this level of guidance.

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 only 23% (only path, source, and target have descriptions). The tool description adds meaning for source/path, hex_path+mcu, peek, trace, and interrupts, but leaves many parameters unexplained (irq, irq_at, irq_every, limit, dump, peek_len). It cannot compensate for the low schema coverage and does not give the agent enough to confidently use all parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run code on the ik8bvm AVR core simulator.' It goes on to list input modes and outputs, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ik_compile or ik_check. This is a textbook example of a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives clear context: you can either provide ik source/path or a hex_path+mcu, and it describes what the simulator returns. This makes the use case obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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