cst_run_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the blocking behavior ('waits for the simulation to complete'), which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., modifying the project state, creating result files) or whether it requires an active connection/project. The blocking disclosure is strong, but a bit more context on prerequisites or side effects would push it to 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral trait (blocking) and alternative routing are included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 blocking simulation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral trait (blocking) and the alternative for long-running simulations. It doesn't mention what happens after completion (e.g., results retrieval via cst_get_s_parameters) or prerequisites like an active project/connection, but the sibling list and schema provide some context. The description is largely complete for the tool's core purpose, with minor gaps around prerequisites and post-conditions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (timeout_s and solver_type) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Start a CST simulation with the current solver settings.' It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('CST simulation'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the async variant by name. This makes it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'This is a blocking call that waits for the simulation to complete. Use cst_run_simulation_async for long-running simulations.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (short simulations) and when to use the alternative (long-running simulations), which is exactly what the dimension requires.

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