List Simulations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds the scope 'past simulation runs' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default ordering, pagination, or whether it returns all runs or only a subset. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly expanded with key details, but it is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Minor room for improvement keeps it at 4.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify return values beyond 'status and metadata'. It lacks details on response structure, pagination, or field examples. However, for a straightforward list tool, the description is minimally adequate. Score 3 reflects this gap.

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 100% for the single optional 'limit' parameter, which includes a description in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 function: listing past simulation runs with status and metadata. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like search_simulations which likely has filtering capabilities. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_simulations or simulation_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or context for usage, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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