wait_for_simulation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description aligns with readOnlyHint by indicating it only waits and does not mutate anything. It adds valuable context about polling behavior, rate limits, and the recommended approach for handling 'still running' responses. However, it doesn't specify the exact return values or what 'still running' means precisely, but with annotations covering safety, it's quite transparent.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose (front-loaded), followed by a brief but essential note on polling and rate limits. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for quick consumption by an agent.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It covers the waiting condition, the timeout, and the polling strategy. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens on timeout (max_minutes reached), but that's implied. Realistically, an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'max_minutes' and 'poll_seconds', and provides a minimum bound for poll_seconds (min 60) to respect rate limits. It implies that max_minutes is the overall wait timeout. This adds meaning beyond the basic schema definitions (type, default), such as the rate limit constraint, which is crucial for correct usage. It could have explicitly defined each parameter, but the coverage is reasonable.

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's purpose: wait until a simulation is no longer pending/running or until max_minutes is reached. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and identifies the resource (simulation) and the condition. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'launch_simulation', 'get_simulation', or 'stop_simulation', which involve different actions.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it explains the polling behavior, recommends a minimum poll interval of 60 seconds to respect API rate limits, and advises that if the tool returns 'still running', the agent should call it again later rather than looping quickly. This is clear, actionable guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, it's sufficient for a polling/waiting tool.

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