DeepMiro

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it lists 'past' runs, which provides useful temporal context, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or rate limits that would be helpful beyond the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only nature, good annotation coverage, and single documented parameter, the description provides adequate context. However, the lack of output schema means the description doesn't clarify what 'status and metadata' specifically includes, leaving some ambiguity about return values.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not providing additional semantic context.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('past simulation runs') with additional context about what information is included ('status and metadata'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'create_simulation' or 'cancel_simulation' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_simulations' or 'simulation_data'.

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 implies usage for viewing past runs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_simulations' or 'simulation_data'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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