aa_rea_run

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, is open-world, and is non-idempotent, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: output and a receipt are persisted at a new path. It doesn't say what happens if the path exists, whether the receipt format is fixed, or what errors look like, leaving gaps for a mutating, open-world tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than concise — nothing wasted, but little delivered.

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?

No output schema and no annotation-level detail on returns; parameters are undocumented; no explanation of the receipt or output artifacts the tool claims to retain. For a mutable, open-world CLI wrapper with a bare schema, the description is too thin for an agent to call it correctly.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'At a new path' loosely hints at the required `out` parameter, but `arguments` (the CLI args array) and `config` are entirely unexplained 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 verb 'Run' plus 'one REA CLI operation' identifies the operation type, but 'REA CLI operation' is opaque — it doesn't say what the CLI does or what kinds of operations exist. It is distinguishable from upsert/validate siblings by implication, but not explicitly from aa_rea_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus aa_rea_status or the other aa_* tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a run must be started first with aa_start). The phrase 'one ... operation' implies single-call scope but nothing more.

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