List Simulations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the grouping-by-threat structure and limit behavior. For a simple read-only listing tool with strong annotations, this is adequate but doesn't add much beyond annotation coverage.

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?

One compact sentence that covers purpose, grouping semantics, and parameter limits. Zero waste, all content earns its place. Front-loads the core purpose before mentioning parameters.

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, single-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations and an output schema present, the description is essentially complete. It communicates what's listed, how it's grouped, and the pagination limit. The output schema handles return-value semantics, so no need to explain those.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description reinforces the default/max values. Since the schema already documents this fully, the description adds marginal value by restating the limits in prose, which matches the baseline 3 for high 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 what the tool does: list adversary-emulation simulation scenarios (atomic test commands grouped by threat). The verb 'list' plus resource 'simulations' is specific. It distinguishes from sibling get_threat_simulations somewhat, though that sibling exists, the description at least clarifies grouping by threat which aids differentiation.

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 mentions the limit parameter (default 50, max 200), providing basic usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_threat_simulations, which appears to be a closely related sibling. No exclusions or alternate tool guidance is given.

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