run_simulation

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 says to run for a specified time but omits whether the call blocks, what 'all' does (run to completion?), required prior state, and what is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though it is too sparse to be complete.

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 one-parameter tool this is simple, but the description omits critical context such as the need to launch a simulation first and the effect of 'all'. With no annotations or output schema, more behavioral context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single 'time' parameter already documents allowed values like '100ns', '1us', and 'all'. The description repeats those examples but adds no syntax or usage detail beyond 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Run the simulation') and scopes it to a specified time with examples. It does not differentiate from siblings like launch_simulation or step_simulation, leaving ambiguity about which simulation-control tool is appropriate.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not mention that a simulation must be launched first, nor does it point to alternatives such as launch_simulation or step_simulation.

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