DeepMiro

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the 1-3 minute generation time, caching behavior, and that reports are 'ready to display as an artifact in the side panel.' Annotations provide read/write and open-world hints, but the description complements this with practical implementation details without contradiction.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, behavioral details, and parameter guidance. Each sentence adds distinct value—no redundancy or fluff—and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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's moderate complexity (generation with caching), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameter use, but doesn't detail the report's content or format, which could be helpful since there's no output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions force_regenerate's purpose ('rebuild an already-cached report') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Generate and retrieve the prediction report for a completed simulation.' It specifies the verb ('generate and retrieve'), resource ('prediction report'), and scope ('for a completed simulation'), distinguishing it from siblings like simulation_status or simulation_data which likely provide different types of simulation information.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for completed simulations, with guidance on force_regenerate for cache invalidation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for ongoing simulations) or name specific alternatives among siblings, though simulation_status might be a logical precursor.

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