Get Simulation Event Details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that it returns plain-English OSI-layer reasoning plus inbound and outbound headers decoded field by field, which tells the agent what to expect beyond a simple event record.

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, followed by a parenthetical example and three concise usage examples. Every sentence contributes to explaining what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

With an output schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and full schema description coverage, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains the tool's output and references the sibling tool for obtaining the required index.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including 'Event index from get_simulation_events'. The description does not add further parameter details, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it explains one Simulation-mode event in the style of Packet Tracer's PDU Information window. It distinguishes itself from get_simulation_events by detailing OSI-layer decisions and decoded headers rather than merely listing events.

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 examples make clear when to use it, such as asking why an event was dropped or what a switch does with a frame. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives beyond the implicit reference to get_simulation_events in the schema.

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