echopath_control_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: this is an asynchronous 'request' and the caller must wait for the paused state before interacting with the desktop. However, it says nothing about permissions, what 'stop' destroys, whether actions are reversible or idempotent, or what happens if the run is already in the requested 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the primary capability leads. The second sentence is slightly telegraphic ('Wait for paused') and reads as a fragment, which costs a point on structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the action vocabulary plus the wait-for-paused sequencing are covered. Still missing for a two-parameter control tool with zero annotations: the meaning of run_id, the effect of stop, and any error or state-precondition behavior.

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 0% and the action parameter is a bare string with no enum, so the only place the legal values (pause/resume/stop) appear is this description – that is real added value. It does not compensate for the rest of the gap: run_id is entirely undocumented, and there is no statement of what happens for an invalid action or unknown run_id.

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?

States a specific verb ('Request') and enumerates the three operations it can perform (pause, resume, stop). The target resource is only implied by the name ('run') and never stated in prose, and the description does not differentiate this tool from look-alike siblings such as echopath_resume, echopath_resume_task, or echopath_start_task.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling list contains at least two other resume-flavored tools that an agent could easily confuse with action='resume'. The 'before taking over the desktop' clause hints at a scenario but never states the condition for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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