ik_vm_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys that this is a non-mutating reference by using the word 'reference' and by listing content rather than actions. It also mentions 'explicit limitations', adding transparency about what the tool covers and does not. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free, but the nature strongly implies it.

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, front-loaded with the purpose ('Deep reference for the ik8bvm AVR simulator') and backed by a dense list of covered areas. Every word adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 reference tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It names the simulator, enumerates the specific content covered, and states the intended use case. It also notes the inclusion of limitations, giving the agent a full picture of what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the empty schema already communicates that no arguments are required. The description appropriately focuses on what the reference contains rather than parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as a deep reference for the ik8bvm AVR simulator, listing specific topics (core classes, register file, SREG flags, memory map, instruction set, peripherals, cycle counting, limitations). This distinguishes it from sibling reference tools like ik_compiler_reference and ik_reference by focusing on VM internals and simulation behavior.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to reason about simulation behaviour.' It provides a clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. Given the many sibling reference tools, a note about not using it for compiler or grammar questions would elevate it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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