run_simulation

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions timeout and returning a status report, but it does not disclose side effects such as writing solver files, modifying the workspace, requiring an Abaqus environment, or whether the run is safe to repeat. For an execution tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by compact parameter documentation. Every line earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers all parameters and points to a status report output, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it lacks workflow context such as prerequisites, side effects, relationship to build_model or check_environment, and when an agent should choose this over start_sweep. It is adequate for invocation but not fully complete.

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%, but the description's Args section documents all four parameters clearly: inp_path's format, job_name's default behavior, cpus' purpose, and timeout_s as a wall-clock ceiling. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Run a single Abaqus job from an .inp deck' and explicitly says it returns a status report. 'Single' also distinguishes it from sweep-oriented siblings, so an agent can tell this apart from start_sweep or build_and_simulate.

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 word 'single' implies this tool is for one-off jobs rather than sweeps, giving some contextual clue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like start_sweep, build_model, or build_and_simulate, and no exclusions are provided.

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