simulation_costs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'summarize,' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The behavioral context is insufficient.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise with no extraneous words, front-loading the key action and subject.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the purpose and mentions the output type (token and cost usage). However, it could be more complete by hinting at the response format or whether the summary is aggregated.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (runId) with a description. The overall description adds meaning by indicating that the tool returns token and cost usage, which provides context for the output beyond the schema.

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 uses the verb 'summarize' and specifies the resource as 'token and cost usage for a simulation run,' which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling simulation tools like simulation_run or simulation_status by focusing on costs and tokens.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as simulation_report or simulation_models. The usage is implied: after a simulation run to get cost summaries, but no when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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