List running CarMaker programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the fields returned (pid, description, whether this server manages it) and the timing nuance that a CarMaker Office window only appears once its application has started. It still says nothing about ordering, staleness guarantees, or whether the list can be empty.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core enumeration is front-loaded before the qualifying note about Office windows. The second sentence is slightly tangential but does earn its place by warning that entries may not appear immediately.

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 parameterless read-only enumeration with an output schema available to explain the return shape, the description covers what the tool returns, what kind of objects appear, and the latency caveat. The remaining gap is navigational rather than behavioral: it does not tell the agent how this differs from cm_standalone_status or when to prefer one.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the schema is a closed empty object and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The parenthetical field list describes outputs, not inputs, and does not confuse that distinction.

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 states a specific resource and scope: CarMaker simulation programs currently running on this machine, with the returned fields named in parentheses. It is clear what an agent gets, but it never uses an explicit listing verb and draws no boundary against the adjacent cm_standalone_status, which an agent could easily confuse with this enumeration tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several plausible siblings (cm_standalone_status, cm_list, cm_status). The only usage-adjacent statement is the note that an Office window appears once its application is started, which explains data latency rather than tool selection.

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