session_advance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses early stopping at end_time, the asynchronous timeout/busy semantics where the worker keeps running, and the per-step history returned. It omits prerequisites (e.g. that a session must be started) and whether output processes write persistent files, keeping it below a 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences earn their place by covering the solution loop, stop reasons, return payload, and the busy/poll path. It is dense but well ordered, with only mild redundancy against the output schema.

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 complex, state-mutating session tool with an output schema, the description supplies the execution sequence, stop reasons, and timeout semantics an agent needs. Missing details are prerequisites for invocation and the non-convergence/failure path, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, and it gives meaning to steps, until_time (model time target), timeout (seconds), and output (whether configured output processes run). It leaves session_id and the unit basis for until_time implicit, so it falls short of full coverage.

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 ('Advance the simulation by steps solution steps') and pins down exactly which routines run (AdvanceInTime, InitializeSolutionStep, SolveSolutionStep, FinalizeSolutionStep, output processes). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like run_simulation and study_start, which start rather than advance an existing session.

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?

It names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it: when the call exceeds timeout, poll session_status until busy is false. It also says the run stops early at end_time. It does not, however, explain when to prefer session_advance over run_simulation or study_start, so there is clear context but no full when-not guidance.

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