run_bisect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the 50-step cap. It omits other key traits, such as whether the call blocks, what happens when the cap is reached, and whether it mutates or locks the session.

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 compact sentence with the terminal condition and step bound front-loaded; no wasted words. It is arguably over-terse, but that gap is captured under completeness rather than structure.

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 no explanation. But for a driver-loop tool in a multi-tool bisect workflow, the description leaves critical questions unanswered: blocking behavior, post-cap outcome, and session state expectations.

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?

The sole required parameter (session_id) has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained anywhere in the description. An agent must guess that it refers to a session created by start_bisect; the description adds no compensating meaning.

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 action (drive step_bisect to completion) with an explicit terminal condition (done/failed), which clearly separates it from the single-step sibling step_bisect. It does not explicitly contrast itself with start_bisect or bisect_status, but the resource and verb are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'until done/failed' implies this is a convenience loop that replaces calling step_bisect repeatedly, so the usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer manual step_bisect calls, and no prerequisites noted.

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