Start Simulation

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that agents will begin interacting, which is useful but does not disclose potential side effects like failure if already started or whether invocation is asynchronous. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter action tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It could mention prerequisites or what happens after starting, but the core behavior is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter simulation_id is fully covered by the schema description ('The simulation ID to start'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Start running') and the specific resource ('a prepared simulation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mirofish_prepare_simulation and mirofish_stop_simulation. The scope is well-defined.

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 'prepared' implies a prerequisite (use after preparation), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives. The usage context is only weakly implied.

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