simaris_target

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. It is minimally adequate but not detailed.

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, concise sentence that immediately tells the user what the tool does. No filler, no repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose and expected result. The only slight gap is that it doesn't mention platform-specific behavior, but the schema handles that. Overall, sufficient.

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 covers the only parameter 'platform' with an enum and description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema's already-solid coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: checking today's Cephalon Simaris synthesis target and recommended scanning locations. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the distinct resource, which differentiates it from sibling tools like world_state or baro_kiteer.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need today's Simaris target and locations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this over other tools.

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