simulate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states the action and parameter. It does not mention side effects such as advancing cloth state, potential performance cost, whether an active garment/project is required, or what the tool returns.

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 extremely compact: one sentence states the purpose and a short Args block documents the parameter. There is no redundant content, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the calling signature is fully covered by the schema and description. However, the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves side effects, prerequisites, and return behavior unexplained, which is a notable gap for a simulation action in a larger workflow.

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 schema provides only a bare integer with a default and 0% property description coverage. The description compensates by defining 'steps' as 'Number of simulation steps to run' and noting the default, adding the missing semantic context for the only parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('cloth simulation') and clarifies that it progresses by a number of steps. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from related siblings like set_simulation_quality.

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 only states the tool's action and provides no guidance on when it should be used versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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