flexsim_run_to_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses blocking behavior ('blocks until done'), the max-speed default, the caveat that 'time only advances while the model has scheduled events,' and how run_speed interacts with the window slider. It omits error/failure behavior and permission needs, so not a 5.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by args, example, and a caveat note. Content is reasonably tight; the example is slightly redundant with the args line but still earns its place by anchoring the unit.

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 the description covers the parameters and the key blocking/speed/scheduled-events behaviors. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though it could note what happens if target_time is in the past.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains target_time is in seconds with a concrete example, and explains run_speed (sets the Run Speed slider, use 1000 for a fast run, default 4x real time). This adds real meaning beyond the bare numeric schema.

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 ('Run simulation until reaching target time') with added scope qualifiers ('blocks until done, max speed'). It is clearly distinguishable from flexsim_run and flexsim_step by the target-time framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the example (target_time=3600 for one hour) and the speed note, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against siblings like flexsim_run or flexsim_step. The agent must infer when this is preferable.

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