simulation.compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It only mentions the comparison dimensions but does not describe side effects (likely none as read-only), permissions required, or the nature of the output (e.g., data vs. visualization). This under-specification leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence (11 words) that conveys essential purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, meeting conciseness standards.

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 simple input (one array parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately identifies the tool's purpose but fails to specify the output format (e.g., table, chart, or raw data). This gap reduces its completeness for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a minimal description 'Simulation run ids.' The tool description adds 'completed simulation runs' which adds slight context but does not specify the ID format or constraints (e.g., min runs). With high schema coverage, the description's additional value is marginal, earning a baseline 3.

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 the verb 'compare' and the resource 'simulation runs', and lists specific dimensions of comparison (adoption, confidence, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like simulation.run or simulation.report by focusing on comparison of multiple completed runs.

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 that runs must be 'completed' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulation.report or simulation.costs. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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