Attach to a running CarMaker program

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-destructive state-changing, closed-world operation. The description adds the 'already running' context but says nothing about whether attaching blocks, how it interacts with session state, or what happens to the existing run.

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 front-loaded sentence that carries the core action, a scope qualifier, and a concrete example with no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are fully documented, so return values and argument syntax need no prose. However, for a session-oriented tool sitting among many cm_standalone_* siblings, the description does little to situate it in the lifecycle (e.g., relationship to cm_standalone_servers for the pid or cm_standalone_launch).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters (pid, start, testrun, overrides, quantities, stop_after_s, realtime_factor) in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Attach) and resource (a CarMaker simulation program that is already running), with the 'already running / started from an Office window' qualifier effectively distinguishing it from launching a new program. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements (cm_standalone_launch), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 'already running' condition and the Office-window example give implied context for when to attach rather than launch, but no alternative tool is named and no exclusions are given. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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