Rocky Run Simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing. The blocking vs non-blocking behavior, the destructive effect of delete_results, and any state prerequisites appear only in the schema, not the description.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of every useful detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a stateful mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the description is far too thin. It omits the fact that this starts a long-running job that must then be polled, which is the key operational fact for an agent.

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 100%, so both parameters (non_blocking, delete_results) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Start the Rocky simulation" names a specific verb and resource, so the basic action is inferable. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like rocky_wait_for_completion or rocky_simulation_status, which an agent could easily confuse with launching a run, and it says nothing about what the simulation operates on.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus rocky_wait_for_completion or rocky_simulation_status, and no stated prerequisites (project open, study described, simulation settings configured). The agent must infer the whole workflow from sibling names.

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