run_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and winner/lift/tie semantics, and mentions 'Background job', but does not explain async handling, retrieval via job_status/results, permissions, or side effects.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs necessary enum-like detail into a single dense but purposeful statement. The semicolon-heavy run-on structure is slightly harder to scan, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a complex nested-spec background job with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the result shape well. It still omits how to obtain or poll results, where simulation_id comes from, and how this differs from sibling test/job tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains many spec fields (type, variants, audience, metric, budget, rounds), but leaves simulation_id, run, and brand largely undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource: testing variants from a spec on a prepared simulation. The long type enumeration clarifies scope, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like website_test, email_test, market_test, or pitch.

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?

Implies usage through 'prepared simulation' and type values, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives. The overlap with sibling test tools is left unresolved.

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