simulation_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of report sections but no extra behavioral context (e.g., performance for large files, reliance on job_id vs raw_file). With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and lists key outputs. No extraneous words or repetition; it earns its place.

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?

With a present output schema, full parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient for a summarization tool. It covers all major report components, and the agent can infer that no side-effects occur. Slight miss: no mention of the job_id/raw_file choice, but that is schema-documented.

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 100% – every parameter has a detailed description in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive simulation summary') and enumerates the exact contents (type, signal list, data size, .MEAS results, Fourier analysis, AC bandwidth metrics, warnings). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like bode_metrics or thd, which target specific analyses.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch_results, check_job). It does not mention prerequisites, workflows, or exclude cases. Given the rich sibling set, this is a notable gap.

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