simulation_run

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load; it does disclose the two most important traits (blocking call, polls isRunning). It omits what happens on timeout or controller failure, what is returned, and whether prior setup (model_open, simulation_set_source) is required before running.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and the blocking constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 five-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers only the call semantics and leaves every input, prerequisite, and failure mode undocumented. An agent knows it will block but not how to configure or time-bound the run.

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?

All five parameters (timeout, end_time, work_dir, model_root, statistics_start) have 0% schema description coverage and none is mentioned in the description. The one term that sounds parameter-like, isRunning, is a status flag, not one of the inputs, so the description adds no parameter meaning at all.

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?

States a specific action (start) plus the key behavioral scope (block until the controller stops, polling isRunning), which is a real distinction from the similarly named simulation_start sibling. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 blocking note implies 'use this when you want to wait for completion', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. With simulation_start, simulation_stop, and simulation_status in the sibling set, the definition does nothing to route an agent among them.

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