get_simulation_template

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes a template with ${PLACEHOLDER} markers and parameter documentation, which are key behavioral details. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but as a read-only getter this is largely sufficient.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded first, followed by placeholder semantics and documentation details. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

For a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (template and docs) and the placeholder aspect. It does not specify the exact return format or error behavior, but given the low complexity this is nearly complete.

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 schema provides an enum for simulation_type but has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any of the enum values or add parameter-specific meaning; it only says 'for the given simulation type,' which is already implied. This fails to compensate for the low 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 'Return the canonical simulation.input template for the given simulation type' with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_simulation_types and get_parameter_docs by explicitly mentioning the template and placeholder markers.

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 the tool is used when you need a template for a simulation type before writing a file. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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