simulation.export_spec

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'convert', but doesn't specify if it's read-only, if it requires a successful simulation first, or if it modifies state. Lacks detail on 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?

Single sentence, efficient, front-loaded purpose. Could add more context without bloat. Not overly verbose.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but lacks details about artifact format, prerequisites, and relationship to other simulation tools. Output schema missing, but description doesn't need to explain return values per rules.

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 covers the single parameter (runId) with a brief description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 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?

Description clearly states the tool converts a simulation report into a product-spec impact artifact. Distinguishes from sibling tools like simulation.report (raw report) and create_spec (possibly from scratch). However, 'product-spec impact artifact' is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulation.compare or simulation.plan. Only implies use after simulation, but no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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