Sb3 Vm Run Until

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the OR semantics for predicates, budget defaulting behavior, and that it is 'proxied'. However, it does not explain whether the call blocks until the predicate or a budget is exhausted, or what state the VM is left in after completion. This is a notable gap for a run tool.

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 description is compact and well-structured: core purpose first, then predicate syntax, then a note on budgets, and finally the benefit over polling. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Slightly dense but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers the essential usage aspects: predicate syntax, OR semantics, budget defaults, and the advantage over polling. It does not mention timeout/error handling, but budgets are implied to prevent infinite runs. Overall, sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most scenarios.

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. It explains the 'until' parameter in detail with examples and JSON format, and implicitly treats 'seconds' and 'chunkFrames' as budgets mentioned in the budget-default sentence. However, it does not explicitly define what these two parameters represent (e.g., max virtual time, frame chunk size) or their units, leaving ambiguity.

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 the headless VM on virtual time until a predicate fires.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling sb3_vm_run by explicitly stating it replaces N× sb3_vm_run poll loops with one call. The scope 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (sb3_vm_run) and the condition to use this tool instead (to avoid poll loops). Provides concrete predicate examples, but does not mention other relevant siblings like sb3_vm_step_frame or potential exclusion criteria (e.g., when step-wise control is needed). Clear enough for most cases.

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