restart_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the important effect: simulation time is reset to 0, implying prior simulation state is discarded. It does not say whether breakpoints, added waves, or signal values survive the restart, nor what happens if no simulation is open.

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 with no filler, and the crucial detail (time 0) is not buried. Nothing redundant is restated from the schema.

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?

For a no-param, no-output tool this is nearly sufficient, but the description omits preconditions (simulation must be launched/open) and whether breakpoints or waveform state persist across the reset. Those are the only remaining questions an agent would have before invoking it.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for parameter documentation to add; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters.

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 and resource ('Restart the simulation') plus the key scope detail 'from time 0', which implicitly separates it from run_simulation and step_simulation. It never names those siblings outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether a session/simulation must already be launched, whether it applies after run_simulation has advanced time, or how it differs from relaunching via launch_simulation. The agent must guess the precondition from the sibling list.

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