simulate_fix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it re-runs the whole simulation, is deterministic, and reports both route count changes and probability movement. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the output is specified, and the usage guidance is integrated naturally without redundancy.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it reports, and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the description explains the key outputs. It could mention cost or performance implications of re-running the full simulation, but that is a minor gap given the annotations already cover safety.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining that cuts are relationships removed and that the simulation runs with those edges removed. It also reinforces the schema's instruction to use node ids from explain_attack_path steps, making parameter usage clearer.

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: 'Ask what actually happens if specific relationships are cut' and describes the concrete outputs (routes disappearing, compromise probability moving). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing this is a deterministic counterfactual over the real graph, not an estimate.

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 explicitly says 'This is the tool to reach for before recommending a change' and frames it as settling 'would this help' instead of arguing. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the deterministic-versus-estimate contrast gives usable context for choosing it.

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