simulation.compare

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 describes the comparison but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies state, or any behavioral traits like data limits or error conditions. For a comparison tool, the lack of read-only hint is a gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the purpose. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only, return format) and usage guidance, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 one parameter `runIds` with minimal description. The tool description adds meaning by stating that these runs are compared across specific metrics, which enriches the schema beyond just listing IDs.

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 'completed simulation runs', and specifies the comparison dimensions (adoption, confidence, evidence coverage, risk, cost). It distinguishes from sibling tools like simulation.costs and simulation.report.

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 use when comparing multiple completed runs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulation.report (single run) or simulation.costs (costs only). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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