list_sims

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile whether this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by describing pagination, output contents, and the filtering modes, without contradicting the annotation.

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 tight sentences: the first states purpose and output shape, the second gives the two filtering modes. No repetition, no filler.

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 read-only list operation with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description conveys scope, return contents, and filtering semantics. It is not fully complete because pagination parameters are not spelled out in prose, though they are visible in the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines 'sim' and 'search', but leaves 'page' and 'limit' to be inferred from the phrase 'Returns a page.' That is helpful but not fully compensating for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the sims (deployed mocks)') and scopes them to the current org. It also clarifies the returned fields (refs, statuses, live URLs), making it semantically distinct from sibling tools like list_mock_endpoints even without naming them.

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?

It provides clear operational context: 'accessible to the current org' and 'Returns a page of sim entries.' It also gives explicit parameter usage rules for 'search' and 'sim', but it does not contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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