Set Calc Time

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 states the effect (calculation runs up to this time) and a constraint (run cannot exceed it). However, it does not disclose what happens if `seconds` is set after a run has started, whether it resets the simulation, or if it affects current state. It also doesn't mention if the tool is idempotent or if setting a smaller time than current truncates results. This is a moderate gap for a setting tool.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then adds a key constraint. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 that there is an output schema (though not shown) and only one parameter with full schema description, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core functionality and a critical limitation. However, it could benefit from noting any side effects or dependencies, such as whether this only affects future runs or also current simulation state. Still, for a simple setter, it is adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the `seconds` parameter: 'конечное время расчёта в секундах (> 0).' This is clear and includes a constraint (>0). The description adds no additional parameter information, but with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the schema's explicit constraint and unit justify a 4.

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 that the tool sets the end time for a project calculation, specifically the `endtime` of the calculation layer. It distinguishes itself from other time-related tools like `get_time` or `run`, which are siblings, by focusing on setting a limit. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is for setting (not getting) time, but the verb 'Задать' (set) is clear.

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 implies usage: it is used to define the upper bound for calculations. It explicitly mentions that `run(to_time=…)` cannot exceed this value, which gives a clear constraint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like `run` or `step`, or when not to use it (e.g., when only a single step is needed). The context provided is useful but not comprehensive.

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