List Simulations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide—no pagination, ordering, or return format info. Since annotations cover safety, the bar is lower, but this adds minimal extra context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the optional filter information without any redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what it lists and the available filter. However, since there is no output schema, it ideally would mention return format or pagination behavior, which is a minor gap.

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% with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'project_id'. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by project' aligns with project_id but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'simulations' and clearly states scope ('all') with an optional filter, distinguishing it from get_simulation (single retrieval) and create_simulation (mutation).

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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing simulations with an optional project filter, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as get_simulation for single-item retrieval or simulation_history for historical data, so no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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