run_flow

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the asynchronous immediate response and polling mechanism, but fails to mention error handling, statefulness, or destructive potential. The lack of annotations places a heavier burden that is not fully met.

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 three sentences long, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, explaining the workflow, and describing the response behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the high-level execution flow but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and required parameters. It hints at response behavior but does not fully equip an agent to understand the tool's complete behavior.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds context about step progression and session creation but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline without adding significant extra semantic value.

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 clearly states it's a step-by-step flow execution engine that creates sessions and submits tasks progressively, with automatic progression and tracking via poll_session. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'execute_workflow' or 'create_session' by emphasizing sequential step execution and polling.

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?

The description implies usage for multi-step workflows where steps are executed sequentially and automatically, and tracks progress via poll_session. Though no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are given, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide to use this tool for step-by-step execution.

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