simulate_disk_allocation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description reinforces this with 'simulation' and 'no real disk changes', and adds that arguments are flat, but discloses no extra traits such as complexity limits (maxItems 256) or failure behavior. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core identity and boundaries. Slight redundancy in enumerating the four arguments, which the schema already names, but it functions as a fast orientation and costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus exclusions. It is nearly complete; only a positive usage condition and any note on simulation scale would add value.

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% – every parameter, including the strategy enum values and block defaults, is documented in the schema. The description only repeats the parameter names without adding format, valid values, or constraints, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('PURE DISK-BLOCK ALLOCATION SIMULATION') and immediately carves out what it is not, naming the page-reference algorithm case that distinguishes it from the sibling simulate_page_replacement. An agent can route between the two simulations without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance ('Not for page-reference algorithms, directory scans, or real disk changes'), which is strong negative routing. It stops short of a positive 'when to use' statement or naming the alternative tool by name, so it is clear context rather than full alternative-routing.

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