rocky_wait_for_completionWaits until the running simulation finishes, using configurable timeout and poll interval settings to monitor completion.
Wait until the running simulation finishes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Maximum number of seconds to wait. | |
| poll_interval | No | Number of seconds between two progress checks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it doesn't say what happens on timeout (error vs. return), whether it blocks the caller, or what it does when no simulation is running. Only the basic blocking semantics is implied by the word 'wait'.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it veers into under-specification rather than tightness.
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 shape needn't be explained, but for a long-running blocking operation with no annotations the description should cover timeout outcome and preconditions. Those gaps leave an agent unable to predict failure modes.
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 timeout and poll_interval are already fully documented with defaults. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.
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?
States a specific verb (wait) and target (running simulation finishing), which is more concrete than a bare name restatement. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as rocky_simulation_status or rocky_run_simulation, which an agent must choose between.
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 on when to block with this tool versus polling rocky_simulation_status, and no preconditions (e.g. a simulation must already be running). The agent is left to infer the whole selection logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.