run_third_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a reviewer but does not indicate whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or is read-only. This is a significant gap for a mutation-related tool.

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 concise, with one sentence and a repetition instruction. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what the tool returns or the scope of 'comedy, pacing, …'. The tool's overall behavior remains vague, and the iteration condition is noted but incomplete.

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 input schema has two parameters (chapter_num and agent_type) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they affect the review, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states it is a third-pass reviewer for comedy and pacing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_editor_review' and 'run_writer_agent' which likely serve different review stages or aspects.

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 explicitly instructs to repeat until all project.third_agents are covered, providing clear iteration guidance. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives beyond this condition.

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