fdtd_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Run the active FDTD simulation' without explaining what happens if no simulation is active, whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, error states, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise at only five words, with no wasted language. However, the brevity sacrifices critical details that could be added without significant length increase.

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 that there are no annotations and the tool is a simulation runner (which implies potential long-running, async, or stateful behavior), the description lacks essential details like execution mode, how to check completion, and what the output schema contains. It is not adequate for a safe and correct usage.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema already fully covers the input. The description adds no param information, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Run' and identifies the resource as 'the active FDTD simulation'. It clearly indicates what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fdtd_start or fdtd_status, which might have overlapping or sequential roles.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it is unclear whether fdtd_start initiates a simulation that must then be run with fdtd_run, or if fdtd_run is the primary execution step. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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