AxMeep_get_simulation_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the polling/waiting semantics, the 120-second per-call cap, the immediate return on terminal state, the maximum chaining policy, and the error_trace handoff—all beyond what the schema implies. The only minor omission is an explicit read-only statement, but the tool's nature makes it obvious.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with purpose: the first defines the action and wait behavior, the second prohibits common mistakes and sets call limits, and the third handles failure routing. There is zero redundancy and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple polling tool with an output schema, the description covers all operational requirements: terminal detection, wait caps, call chaining limits, and error handling. It even preempts the common failure recovery path by telling the agent how to feed the error back into generate_code. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial operational semantics: task_id is tied to execute_code, wait_seconds default and cap are reinforced, and the 'Do NOT loop with wait_seconds=0' rule provides crucial safety guidance. It also links the returned error_trace to generate_code, which is high-value context not present in the schema.

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 opens with 'Check a Meep job, optionally waiting for it to finish,' which clearly identifies the verb (check), the resource (Meep job), and the distinguishing capability (waiting). It is unambiguously different from siblings like AxMeep_get_results, which retrieves final outputs, and AxMeep_execute_code, which submits jobs.

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 gives explicit, actionable guidance: pass wait_seconds (capped at 120) to wait, it returns when terminal, a typical 1-2 minute job needs one call, and it explicitly warns against looping with wait_seconds=0 or chaining more than 5 calls. It also spells out the exact integration step for failed jobs, directing the error_trace to generate_code as previous_error.

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