logisim_simulate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it defines clock semantics (low->high->low full cycles), the trace shape (one row per cycle per pin/LED/probe), and value encodings including x for undefined and E for conflict. It stops short of noting whether the .circ file is modified or what happens on simulation errors.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return-format details, and the optional render behavior is placed last. Nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values - and it does, describing trace rows per cycle, the covered signals, and value formats. For a 5-parameter simulation tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies that each step first sets inputs and then advances 'clock' cycles, and explains the decimal/bit-string value domain that the schema only hints at. Render and path semantics are left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a circuit step by step') and immediately defines the mechanism - setting input pins then advancing clock cycles. This clearly separates it from build/verify/render siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 procedural description implies the usage context (stepping through a circuit to observe outputs) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as logisim_verify or logisim_truth_table, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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