Wait for a standalone run to end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the branching on finished, and what is returned on completion (simulation time, distance, error flag, log errors), which tells the agent this is a poll-until-done loop rather than a one-shot query.

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 the outcome branching front-loaded after the purpose; every clause carries information. The elliptical fragments ('finished=true: simulation time and distance...') are terse but readable.

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, so return shape need not be explained in depth, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The description still supplies the essential control-flow contract (poll again if not finished) and the success payload, making the definition adequate for correct invocation.

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 both instance and timeout_s are already documented in the schema, including the advice on socket timeouts. The description adds only the framing that the wait targets 'the instance's simulation', which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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 verb and resource: wait until the instance's simulation has finished. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling cm_wait_end, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which wait tool applies to non-standalone runs.

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 implies usage via the polling loop ('finished=false: call again to keep waiting') and the schema advises keeping timeout_s below the client tool timeout. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to cm_standalone_status or cm_wait_end, leaving routing to inference.

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