Run Poietic simulation

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the return shape, side effects of outputPath, the nuanced effect of parameters on stocks versus other nodes, version-dependent behavior of allVariables, and that formula errors cause the run to fail.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose and return value, then covers the key behavioral nuances in a logical order. Every sentence adds operational value, and the length is justified given the tool has 11 parameters and no annotations.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return format, parameter selection modes, override semantics, file persistence, version behavior, and failure conditions, leaving only minor details to the schema.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics on top, especially for 'variables' (selection and default behavior), 'parameters' (stocks vs other nodes), and 'allVariables' (version-dependent inclusion), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Run') and a concrete resource ('Stock and Flow simulation'), and states exactly what it returns: a per-variable summary plus capped sample rows. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like poietic_validate or poietic_get_design, which serve different stages of the workflow.

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 gives clear context for when to use each option: 'variables' for observing specific nodes, 'parameters' for overriding node values, 'outputPath' for saving the full CSV, and 'allVariables' for including internal variables. It also advises validating the design first, though it does not explicitly name poietic_validate as the alternative tool.

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