run_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action (run) and return values, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether the execution modifies state.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and outputs, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

While the description includes return type information (exitCode, captured logs) and references the underlying command, it could benefit from clarifying what 'act' is and any prerequisites for job names. Overall it is mostly complete for a simple execution 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra value by mentioning the 'act -j' command and specifying return values, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 the tool runs a specific job using 'act -j <jobName>' and specifies return values as exitCode and captured logs. It distinguishes from siblings (get_logs, list_workflows) by focusing on job execution.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is for running jobs, while siblings retrieve logs or list workflows. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any conditions for use.

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