simulate_rule_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only simulation — no data is modified,' which is the most critical behavioral trait. It also explains that it evaluates conditions and shows affected employees and changes. More detail on authentication or prerequisites would improve transparency, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 concise, with three short paragraphs that immediately communicate the tool's purpose and key characteristics. No unnecessary words, and the read-only nature 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the core purpose and read-only trait, but omits details about required parameters like 'rule_spec' and authentication parameters. The output schema may compensate, but the description itself does not fully prepare an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 33%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. For example, 'data_center', 'auth_user_id', and 'auth_password' are mentioned in the schema but not explained in the description.

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 it simulates the impact of a business rule on real employee data, showing affected employees and changes. It specifies 'read-only simulation' and is distinct from sibling tools like 'trace_rule_execution' or 'generate_rule_spec'.

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 says 'Useful for impact analysis before deploying a new rule,' giving a clear context of when to use this tool. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic use.

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