Get Detailed Run Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the status includes round progress and agent activity, but does not go beyond that to explain behaviors like response format or any latency considerations. It aligns with annotations and provides some incremental value, but not extensive.

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 that states the verb, resource, and key details without any redundant or filler language. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and properly structured.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, read-only, no output schema). The description covers the essential content returned (round progress, agent activity) but does not fully specify the structure or exhaustive list of fields one might receive. Given the low complexity and good annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete, though a more explicit listing of return contents would be ideal.

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%: the only parameter, 'simulation_id', has the description 'The simulation ID'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific phrasing 'Get detailed running status of a simulation' with concrete inclusions ('round progress and agent activity'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mirofish_simulation_run_status' by marking the 'detailed' variant and specifying content, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 word 'detailed' implies this tool is the richer version of the simulation run status, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus the sibling 'mirofish_simulation_run_status' or any other status tools. Usage context is only implied through naming and content, not explicitly stated.

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