simulation_run

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 discloses the return type and key fields, but lacks details on error behavior, idempotency, or whether the run is synchronous or asynchronous. Given the absence of annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful.

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?

Two concise sentences with a clear prerequisite and return description. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 explains what the tool returns but lacks details on the SimulationRun structure, error scenarios, or potential side effects. With 5 parameters and no output schema, additional context on behavior and constraints would improve completeness.

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 60%, and the description adds meaning by specifying the source of scenarioId. However, it does not explain the purpose or effects of other parameters like rounds, maxAgents, or allowLiveModels, which are only partially covered in 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 clearly identifies the action ('Run') and the resource ('prepared local or model-swarm product simulation scenario'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like simulation_plan by mentioning prerequisites, though it could be more explicit about its unique role among the many simulation siblings.

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?

Explicit prerequisite to call simulation_plan first and pass scenario.id provides strong usage guidance. However, it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like simulation_run_matrix or simulation_stream.

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