run_processor

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry transparency. It does explain the execution effect (runs once, on demand) and the mode-dependent behavior. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether this consumes data, whether it can be called repeatedly, or any destructive impact on the processor state or its scheduled outputs.

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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The second paragraph explains mode differences efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, though the paragraph break could be tightened. No wasted words.

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-value documentation is handled. Given this is a moderately complex on-demand execution tool with mode-dependent behavior, the description covers execution semantics well. It could add more about repeated invocations or interactions with scheduled outputs, but the core use case is adequately explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds context around the 'seconds' and 'filtered' parameters (window length and overriding declared preference), which is implied in the schema descriptions but clarified. This goes somewhat beyond bare parameter definitions, though most weight settles on the schema.

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 action ('Run a processor once on the most recent window, on demand') with a clear resource (processor) and context (mode). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_processor_output or processor_status, which could be conflated. The verb+resource is clear but sibling differentiation is limited.

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 description explains the usage context well: for non-streaming processors it's the only execution path, and for streaming ones it provides on-demand answers. This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't mention exclusions or when NOT to use it (e.g., when scheduled output is acceptable for streaming).

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