run_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and that output is summarised, but it does not disclose side effects of running Mplus (e.g., generated output files), execution duration risks, or what the summary contains. This is a significant gap for an execution 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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core operation is stated first, and the intended use case is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core use case and references the input file type, but it omits expected output summary details and behavioral expectations like timeout handling, though the schema does describe parameter constraints.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond referencing run_syntax for the 'include' option. 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 description uses a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('Mplus input file that already exists on disk'), and adds differentiating context ('written by hand or by the Mplus editor') that separates it from siblings like run_syntax. It is clear and not a tautology.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this for .inp files written by hand or by the Mplus editor.' It clearly identifies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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