Launch a standalone CarMaker run

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds real context beyond that: it spawns a NEW independent process disconnected from MATLAB and writes results into the project's SimOutput. It stays silent on process lifecycle (that the run persists and must be closed/queried via cm_standalone_close/status/wait_end).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the gating constraint, then the results destination. No padding, and the pointer to cm_standalone_results earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete, and it correctly defers return values to cm_standalone_results. The one gap is the surrounding lifecycle workflow (attach/status/wait_end/close) implied by the sibling set, which a launching agent would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters including start, overrides, quantities and stop_after_s are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Start a NEW independent CarMaker simulation program... and run a test run on it') and explicitly scopes it against the MATLAB-connected path. It also names the results sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from cm_start_sim without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use constraint: 'Only for test runs whose vehicle does not need a Simulink controller.' That cleanly excludes the Simulink case, but it never names the alternative tool (cm_start_sim) to use instead, leaving the routing half-inferred.

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