Get Simulation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of return format, pagination, or other traits. It adds no value here.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no wasted words or redundant information, making it appropriately concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return values, but it only vaguely says 'details and current status'. It does not specify which details or how this differs from sibling tools like simulation_run_status or get_simulation_config. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is insufficiently informative for an agent choosing among many similar getters.

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 description coverage is 100%, with simulation_id documented as 'The simulation ID'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the needed meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('details and current status of a specific simulation'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as mirofish_simulation_run_status or mirofish_get_simulation_config, which also fetch simulation-related details. The lack of distinction prevents 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 40 sibling tools, including several simulation-specific getters, the absence of usage context or exclusions leaves the agent to guess. This is a clear gap.

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