compare_with_wntr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that the tool executes an external simulation with WNTR/EPANET, compares specific quantities, and reports divergence reasons. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond the bare mutation/read distinction.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes units and comparison criteria. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description states what will be computed, the units, and the comparison intent, while the presence of an output schema covers return-value shape. It does not mention external dependencies like WNTR availability or potential runtime behavior, but for a single-parameter read-only comparison tool this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It only refers to 'the system' and does not explain what system_id should be, how to obtain it, or any format constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema.

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 (solve and compare), names the target resource (the system), and specifies the expected outputs (per-link flows in m3/h, node pressures in bar gauge, plus the differences and why they diverge). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like solve and simulate by adding the EPANET/WNTR comparison dimension.

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 clearly states the context: use this tool when you need to solve the system and compare results against EPANET via WNTR. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it is the right choice versus solve or simulate.

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