sa_run_design

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses parallel execution, the default thread count (one per CPU), skip-if-result-exists idempotency, and the returned counts (done/run/failed/not started). It omits any note on timeout behavior, permissions, or side effects of failed points.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action and scope before the skip behavior and return values. Efficient and well-ordered.

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?

The description covers the return values in lieu of an output schema and explains the parallel/skip behavior, which is good. But for an execution tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, it leaves the agent without guidance on the required model/config inputs or the timeout parameter.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description only partially compensates by explaining the threads default (one per CPU). The meaning of model, config, and especially timeout_s (default 3600) is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb+resource ("Run every numbered configuration of the design") and clarifies scope as the whole design rather than a single configuration. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling run_configuration (singular), but never names it, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. With both run_configuration and sa_run_design present as siblings, the agent must guess which to pick; the description only hints via "every numbered configuration" vs a single one, without stating the selection rule.

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