simulate_movement

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 a few behavioral details, such as AABB collision testing and waypoint navigation paths, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it returns computed paths or only validates viability), error conditions, or performance implications. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action (simulation and collision) is front-loaded, followed by the alternative (navigation). While it could benefit from structured enumeration of modes, the current form is efficient and reads clearly.

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 11 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to guide an agent effectively. It does not specify which parameters apply to each mode, what the return format looks like (e.g., collision results, path coordinates), or how to select between 'navigate' and 'waypoints'. This leaves significant ambiguity for correct invocation, especially in multi-mode tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description provides a high-level overview but does not explain how parameters interrelate (e.g., that start_position and target_position are relevant only in navigation/waypoint mode, or that velocity and delta_position are for simulation). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, and no parameter usage examples or prerequisites are provided—exactly the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: it simulates physical movement and tests AABB collisions, or calculates waypoint navigation paths. It distinguishes two distinct operation modes and names the specific resource (entities, coordinates, AABB). This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_entity (which likely modifies state) and get_spatial_map (which reads spatial data).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions two modes but does not explain the selection criteria (e.g., use 'simulate' when you need collision checks, use 'navigate' when planning a path). There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools. An agent must infer usage from the 'mode' parameter and surrounding context, which is insufficient for a multi-mode tool.

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