get_simulation_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what data is returned but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or free of side effects. The 'Get' verb implies a read, but given the zero annotation coverage, more explicit disclosure (e.g., 'does not modify simulation state') would be beneficial. The extra note about step_simulation is about a sibling tool's behavior, not this tool's.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the purpose and return fields; the second adds a useful but tangential warning about step_simulation. It is appropriately sized with no redundant text.

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 parameterless getter with an output schema, the description sufficiently names the returned fields and even includes a relevant workflow caveat about stepping without playing. No important calling context is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies for no 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?

Description explicitly states the tool retrieves the current simulation state and enumerates the specific components: timeline status, simulation time, and physics dt. It uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource. While it doesn't contrast with sibling get_physics_state, the specificity makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a specific workflow hint about step_simulation not requiring a running timeline, which indirectly helps an agent decide not to call play_simulation before stepping. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_physics_state or get_scene_info, nor provide general selection criteria.

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