Create Simulation

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the prerequisite about the knowledge graph, which is useful behavioral context. Yet it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether creating a simulation also starts it, what side effects occur, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and immediately state the key prerequisite. There is no fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making this an excellent model of conciseness.

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 is complete enough for a simple create operation with full schema coverage and annotations. However, given the large set of sibling tools (prepare_simulation, start_simulation, stop_simulation, etc.), the description does not clarify where this fits in the simulation lifecycle or what the expected outcome is (e.g., does it return an ID?). The lack of an output schema further amplifies this ambiguity. A more complete description would mention the simulation lifecycle step and result.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It only mentions the project as a conceptual source, which the schema already captures via project_id. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states the tool's function: 'Create a new multi-agent simulation from a project.' It identifies the specific verb (create) and resource (simulation), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like prepare_simulation or start_simulation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a completed knowledge graph.' This is useful contextual guidance for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, leaving the agent without exclusions or comparisons to closely related simulation tools.

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