Simulation status

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 goes further by disclosing a genuine nuance not in annotations: gui_all_saved=false means the GUI holds unsaved data and will prompt before a load, while true is explicitly not a guarantee because edits in an open editor window are not counted.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the primary payload (simulation state) is front-loaded. The nested parenthetical on gui_all_saved is dense and slightly hard to parse, but every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obliged to enumerate return fields, yet the enumeration plus the gui_all_saved caveat covers the semantics an agent needs for a zero-parameter status read. The only gap is routing versus the other status siblings.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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?

The description enumerates exactly what state is retrieved: simulation state, active Simulink model, project directory, last end status, save_mode and gui_all_saved. That is concrete and unambiguous, though it is phrased as a noun list rather than a verb and never distinguishes this from siblings like cm_study_status or cm_standalone_status.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. That several sibling status tools exist (cm_study_status, cm_standalone_status, cm_doctor) makes the omission noticeable.

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