cst_run_simulation_async

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes asynchronous behavior (non-blocking, immediate return). However, it lacks details about background execution limits, resource consumption, or potential error states. For a simulation launch, this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value (action, behavior, next steps). Fully efficient.

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?

Despite good purpose and guidelines, the description omits critical context: there is no output schema, but the tool likely returns a job identifier or status handle needed for monitoring via cst_get_simulation_status. It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be open, mesh must be set). This leaves the agent guessing about return value and required prior state.

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 100% with a detailed description for solver_type (enum, optional, default behavior). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it starts a CST simulation asynchronously, with a specific verb (start) and resource (CST simulation). It distinguishes from synchronous sibling cst_run_simulation by emphasizing non-blocking behavior, and references cst_get_simulation_status for monitoring, which differentiates other similar tools.

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?

Description explicitly states asynchronous nature and immediate return, telling the agent when to use it (for non-blocking). It also directs to cst_get_simulation_status for progress monitoring, implying the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list prerequisites.

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