run_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return statistics (final markings, mean values, min/max, Terminators block) and parameter constraints (time unit matching delays). It does not mention potential side effects, but simulation is likely read-only.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a paragraph of details, and an Args block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (even if not detailed here), the description sufficiently explains the return values. The two parameters are fully explained, and the tool's role in the workflow (simulating after building) is clear.

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% (no parameter descriptions), but the description adds detailed meaning: simulation_time must match transition delays, time_unit has explicit options and default, and the response echoes duration for verification.

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 it runs a discrete-event simulation of a Petri Net and returns statistics. It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling configuration tools.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, it implies usage after building the net. The context of sibling tools (all configuration except get_*) makes it clear this is the execution tool.

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