Run Claude Code

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the call blocks until completion and should not be polled. Annotations already indicate destructive/open-world behavior, but the description enriches the operational understanding with the blocking and delegation guidance. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a direct operational instruction, and the third provides a delegation note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (15 parameters, long-running, destructive), the description captures the critical orchestration behavior (blocking, no polling, delegation) and benefits from a rich output schema. It doesn't mention preconditions or resume alternatives, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 80%, so parameters are largely self-documenting. The description does not add parameter-level meaning; it focuses on behavior. With high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate—no additional value provided beyond what the schema already does.

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 explicitly states 'Run a new Claude Code session and keep this single MCP call open until it completes.' This clearly identifies the action, resource, and blocking behavior, and distinguishes from the sibling 'claude_code_resume' by emphasizing a new session.

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?

It provides clear operational guidance: 'Do not poll' and explicit delegation advice for long tasks. While it doesn't explicitly mention using 'claude_code_resume' for existing sessions, the phrase 'new session' implies the distinction. Overall, it gives useful context for when and how to use the tool.

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