simulation_compare

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('compare completed simulation runs') and lists the comparison dimensions. However, it does not disclose behavior for incomplete runs, limits on number of runs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence of 12 words, directly front-loading the verb 'Compare'. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic action and metrics. However, it omits the return format (e.g., what the comparison output looks like), which an agent would need to interpret results. Adequate but not fully 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'runIds', describing it as 'Simulation run ids.' The tool description adds context by stating what the comparison does with those IDs (compare by specific metrics), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, no additional details on format or acquisition are 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 tool compares completed simulation runs by specific metrics (adoption, confidence, evidence coverage, risk, and cost). The verb 'compare' and resource 'completed simulation runs' are precise, and the listing of metrics distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulation_report (single run) and simulation_list_runs (list only).

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 when comparing completed runs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., simulation_report for single-run details). It also does not mention prerequisites like obtaining run IDs via simulation_list_runs.

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