run_syntax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses line folding to 90 characters, that .inp and .out files persist on disk, and what default output is summarised. It does not cover error behavior or run side effects, but the essential traits are transparent.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds useful behavioral or usage detail.

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 six-parameter execution tool with no output schema, the description explains the operation, persistence, defaults, and output extension mechanism. It is slightly incomplete on what exactly the 'summary' contains as a return value, but enough is provided for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the default output contains and how `include` extends it, which goes beyond the schema's raw list of allowed sections.

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 clearly states a specific verb-resource chain: write Mplus syntax to a file, run it, and summarise output. This differentiates it from nearby siblings like run_file (running existing files) and output_summary (summarising already-produced output).

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 implies the tool is for submitting new/supplied Mplus syntax and receiving a summary, and it gives guidance on requesting more output with `include`. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with sibling tools like run_file or build_syntax, so an agent must infer when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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