Run Claude Code

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lowered. Description adds critical context: returns jobId immediately, runs in background, and clarifies that 'execute' tier may edit files while 'consult' is read-only. This goes beyond annotations and covers key behaviors.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and async nature, then immediately reference qoder_status and tier semantics. Zero fluff, each sentence earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical use case: starting a run, getting jobId, polling for result. Schema documents all parameters, so the description needn't repeat them. The description is missing explicit mention of failure modes or limits, but given the async pattern and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining tier meaning (consult read-only, execute may edit) directly, which supplements the schema's simple 'Permission tier' description. It also clarifies async behavior tied to the jobId return.

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 ('Start a new Claude Code session') with a clear resource ('workspace'), and explicitly differentiates from siblings by mentioning async jobId return and qoder_status for polling. The tier semantics (consult vs execute) further disambiguate the tool's scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use qoder_status for polling results, and clarifies tier meaning. Does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives beyond qoder_status, but the context is clear enough for the primary flow.

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