Simulation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: long-polling (blocks up to 50s), the full lifecycle (CREATED → ... → COMPLETED/FAILED), and that COMPLETED returns inline report. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 concise paragraphs: first explains core functionality and long-polling, second lists lifecycle states. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns: state, and if COMPLETED, full prediction report. It also explains the lifecycle and long-polling behavior. Complete for a status-checking tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the meaning of 'wait' (default true, long-poll) and implies usage of 'detailed'. While schema does most of the work, the description adds context about long-poll behavior and default.

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 purpose: 'Check the progress of a running or completed simulation.' It specifies the resource (simulation) and action (check progress), distinguishing it from siblings like get_report or list_simulations. The mention of long-polling and lifecycle adds depth.

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 explains when to use: to check progress, especially with long-polling waiting for state changes. It notes that when state=COMPLETED, the full prediction report is included, which may overlap with get_report. No explicit when-not-to-use is given, but the context is clear.

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