mdrun_list

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

The description adds that the tool lists 'all known background simulations' and provides 'current status', which is useful context. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds some value beyond annotations but does not disclose behavior like pagination or response format.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and key resource. Every word is necessary and informative, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, a output schema (which documents return values), and annotations that fully cover safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does (list all background simulations and their status), which is sufficient for a simple query operation.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. There are no parameters to explain, and the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description adequately conveys the tool's input structure by implying no arguments are needed.

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 tool lists all known background simulations and their current status. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all known background simulations'). While it distinguishes itself from siblings like mdrun_status (which likely shows status of a single simulation), it does not explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mdrun_status (for checking a specific simulation) or mdrun_logs (for logs). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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