cst_get_simulation_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'does not show a dialog or change the simulation', which is a key behavioral trait that distinguishes it from mutation and dialog tools. However, it does not disclose the behavior of the timeout_s parameter (e.g., whether it polls, blocks, or returns immediately) or describe the structure of 'solver-run metadata', leaving some operational ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose ('Read whether a CST simulation is running') and immediately adding a clarifying negative constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves gaps. It does not explain the role of timeout_s (why or how it is used), what specific 'solver-run metadata' might be returned, or whether an active connection is required. These are plausible questions an agent might need resolved before calling, though the core read-only behavior is clearly stated.

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 for the undocumented parameter. It does not mention timeout_s at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the parameter's name and default value. Since the only parameter is optional and self-descriptive, the lack of explanation is a minor shortcoming, but the description still fails to add any semantic value for the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('whether a CST simulation is running'), clearly distinguishing this from control tools like cst_run_simulation, cst_pause_simulation, and cst_stop_simulation. It also clarifies it 'does not show a dialog or change the simulation', which differentiates it from dialog-watcher and mutation tools. This is unambiguous and leaves no room for confusion about its core function.

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 clearly implies use when you need to check simulation status without side effects, stating 'This does not show a dialog or change the simulation.' It provides context for selecting this over simulation-control or dialog-related tools, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The intended usage is evident from the read-only framing.

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