flexsim_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one genuinely useful trait ('returns immediately', i.e. non-blocking/async), but says nothing about prerequisites (a loaded model), what happens if already running, how the run is halted (flexsim_stop), or error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key fact (continuous, non-blocking run) leads and the argument note follows. Slightly terse and the Args formatting is stubby, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be explained, and a single optional param keeps the surface small. However, with zero annotations the description omits preconditions and lifecycle context (how to stop, interaction with reset/step), leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 0% (the schema only encodes the numeric type and exclusiveMinimum 0), so the description must compensate — and it does, labeling run_speed a 'multiplier' with a '> 0' constraint and marking it optional. That adds real semantics beyond the raw type constraint.

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 and resource ('Start running the simulation continuously') and the 'continuously' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from flexsim_step and flexsim_run_to_time. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. With siblings like flexsim_step, flexsim_run_to_time, flexsim_stop, and flexsim_run_experiments, the agent is left to guess which run mode applies.

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