get_sim_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it surfaces version mismatch and remediation steps, but that field list largely mirrors what the output schema already documents, leaving little behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers the core purpose first and then the field list. The field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, which keeps it from perfect efficiency, but there is no filler.

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?

With zero params, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description needs only to orient the agent, which it does. The version-difference guidance is a useful extra; nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning needs elaboration, and the description correctly focuses on the returned state rather than inventing input semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('simulation state') and then enumerates exactly what it returns: play state, time, FPS, prim count, up axis, and Kit/server versions. This read-only enumeration clearly contrasts with the sibling sim_control, which mutates that state, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 read-only framing implies when to use it (inspecting simulation status), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or named alternative such as sim_control for changing state. The only conditional guidance ('what to run when they differ') concerns version remediation, not tool selection.

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