DeepMiro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing behavioral traits beyond annotations: it specifies the return includes 'phase-aware status with entity names and action content' and lists the phases (building_graph → generating_profiles → simulating → completed), which helps the agent understand the output structure and progression. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details about return content and phases. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (status checking with phases), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return content and phases, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., simulation_id validity) for full completeness.

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%, with both parameters (simulation_id, detailed) fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic value is provided.

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 specific verb ('Check the progress') and resource ('running or completed simulation'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_simulation (creation), cancel_simulation (termination), and get_report (report retrieval). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 context by specifying it's for 'running or completed simulation', suggesting it should be used after a simulation is initiated. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for non-simulation tasks) or direct alternatives (e.g., using list_simulations for overviews vs. this for detailed status). The context is clear but could be more comprehensive.

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