invariance_create_run

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

With no annotations on the tool, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides none – no mention of side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. It is a bare alias with zero behavioral context.

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 only a single sentence, which is concise, but it is underspecified rather than appropriately minimal. It lacks any structure or essential detail, making it a placeholder rather than a useful definition.

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 (at least one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is entirely insufficient. An agent would need to look up invariance_run_start to understand behavior, which is not provided. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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% (there is no description for the 'name' parameter) and the description adds nothing about parameters. The agent cannot infer what 'name' refers to – run name, agent name, or something else. The description offers no compensation for the schema gap.

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 is a tautology – 'Alias of invariance_run_start' restates the tool's identity without explaining what it does. It does not mention starting or creating a run, nor does it distinguish itself from the canonical invariance_run_start or any sibling. An agent gains no functional understanding.

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 tool versus invariance_run_start or other run-related tools. No exclusions, no context, no indication of prerequisites. The alias reference is an implicit pointer, but not an explicit usage guideline.

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