run_kscc_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that execution is headless, one-time, and returns structured JSON containing a session_id. This tells the agent the operation's nature and return shape, though it does not mention side effects like file modifications or cost implications. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key information: one-time, headless, coding task, structured JSON, and session_id for continuation. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity of 15 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It covers the essential return behavior but does not explain the many optional parameters, when to use them, or the operational effects (e.g., file changes, budget limits). The agent would need to infer a great deal about how to invoke this tool correctly, especially for non-trivial tasks.

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 only 13%, with only prompt and cwd having descriptions. The tool has 15 parameters, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of them. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage at all; the agent is left to guess the semantics of model, effort, addDirs, mcpConfig, permissionMode, and the rest.

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 action (one-time headless execution of kscc coding task) and a clear resource (kscc prompt). The word '一次性' (one-time) differentiates it directly from the sibling continue_kscc_session, and the mention of session_id for continuation reinforces this distinction. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the sibling.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description notes that a session_id is returned for continuation, which hints that to continue a task you would use the sibling, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over continue_kscc_session or vice versa. No exclusion or alternative condition is given.

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