cst_run_simulation_async

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly discloses the non-blocking behavior and immediate return of control. However, it does not mention what happens if the start command fails, whether a simulation can only be started once a project is open, or what the tool returns upon success, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The key non-blocking behavior is front-loaded, and the monitoring pointer is added in the second sentence without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain enough context for correct invocation. It covers launch semantics and monitoring, which is good. However, it omits return-value behavior and error/failure handling for the launch itself, so an agent is left guessing what the immediate result of calling this tool is beyond 'control returns immediately. This is a clear completeness gap for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, with 100% schema description coverage and a clear enum for solver_type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a CST simulation asynchronously (non-blocking).' It immediately distinguishes itself from the synchronous sibling cst_run_simulation by emphasizing that control returns immediately. This makes the tool's role 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?

The description gives clear context that this launches and returns immediately, and it explicitly directs the agent to use cst_get_simulation_status for monitoring. It does not explicitly name cst_run_simulation as the alternative for blocking execution or state when to prefer one over the other, but the async/non-blocking framing makes the intended usage clear.

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