coppelia_experiments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral facts: episode cap of 20, per-episode scene reload, combined step cap of 10000, and that joint positions/diagnostics/success conditions are produced. It omits blocking behavior, what happens to simulator state, and error handling on episode failure.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the two hard caps. Nothing is wasted, though the semicolon-clause packing makes it read like a feature list rather than prioritized guidance.

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 6-parameter tool with a required array-of-objects 'episodes' argument, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot construct a valid episode entry or know what sample_every/headless/sensors do from this text alone.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must explain them and largely does not. It hints at initial_scene ('explicit scene') and episodes, and loosely at observe ('joint positions, diagnostics'), but headless, sample_every, sensors, and the structure of each episode object are entirely undocumented.

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 ... simulation episodes') plus concrete scope limits (up to 20 episodes, explicit scene, 10000 combined steps). It implicitly separates itself from single-step siblings like coppelia_step/coppelia_simulate by being a batch-episode runner, but never names 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?

The word 'experiments' and the 20-episode/10000-step caps imply this is for multi-episode batch evaluation rather than single stepping, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of coppelia_simulate when...' guidance or prerequisite statement.

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