run_parallel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: round-robin scheduling, ~N/M round count, devices leased for the whole duration, guaranteed release on exit including failure (so a crash cannot strand a device), and per-device failure isolation. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a resource-leasing 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then two short paragraphs covering scheduling and return/failure behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; nothing is restated.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return payload (per-flow results, wall-clock time, sequential estimate, speedup) and the failure-reporting model. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents env, flows, devices, and timeout, including the busy-device-skipped rule. The description's mention of distribution and leasing adds context about how devices are used but not new per-parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Run'), resource ('Maestro flows'), and the distinguishing scope ('in parallel across leased devices'). That scope cleanly separates it from the sibling run_and_assert, which implies single-flow execution. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 parallel/multi-flow scenario is implied by 'Run several Maestro flows in parallel', and the device-pool behavior is explained, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance. It never states when to prefer run_and_assert or a single-flow path, nor does it note any prerequisites for leasing devices. Implied usage only.

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