gh_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description 'Run' adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention what side effects occur (e.g., recomputation, Rhino document changes).

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 a single sentence, concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose, but the sentence could be more informative without adding length. It is not wasteful, but does not fully earn 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description lacks critical context: what 'current solution' refers to, whether a file must be open, what the output implies, and how it relates to the Grasshopper environment. Incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 includes a description for the 'new_solution' parameter ('Force a fresh solution'), so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning for the parameter; baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Run the current solution' states a verb and resource, but is vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'gh_run_template' or 'gh_run_template' (note: 'gh_run_template' exists), which also involve running. The title 'GH: Run Solution' adds slight specificity, but the description fails to differentiate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gh_run_template' or other Grasshopper execution tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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