simulation.run_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions planning and running but does not explain what 'model-swarm' entails, whether the tool modifies state, performance implications, or required permissions. The description is too brief to inform safe usage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and outcome. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (4 parameters, multiple hypotheses, comparison), the description is sparse. It lacks details on how outcomes are compared, what the return value contains, and any constraints like time limits or error states. No output schema further compounds the incompleteness.

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 50% (only hypotheses and research have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as the meaning of maxAgents or rounds. It fails to compensate for the gaps in schema documentation.

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 ('Plan and run'), identifies the resource ('multiple model-swarm hypotheses'), and states the outcome ('compare outcomes for product-spec decision work'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like simulation.run (singular) and simulation.compare (comparison only).

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 usage for multiple hypotheses and product-spec decisions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulation.run or simulation.compare. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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