run_gmx

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

Description adds 'non-blocking' behavioral info beyond annotations, but does not detail error handling, output capture, or other side effects. Annotations already hint at mutability (readOnlyHint=false) but no contradiction.

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?

Single, efficient sentence, front-loaded with essential purpose and scope. No extraneous information.

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's simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the key constraint (non-blocking, dedicated tools) but could mention that the output is captured and returned as text.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain parameters. However, for a generic command wrapper, parameter names and types (args, stdin, timeout, workdir) are somewhat self-explanatory, though the format of args (e.g., including 'gmx' command) could be clearer.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'non-blocking gmx subcommand not covered by a dedicated tool', distinguishing it from dedicated sibling tools like 'grompp' or 'mdrun_start'.

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?

Explicitly specifies usage for subcommands without a dedicated tool, implying when not to use (when a dedicated tool exists). Sibling tools serve as alternatives.

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