martin_triage_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating prioritization is based on 'verification, lifecycle, and budget pressure'. It does not however describe in detail how the prioritization is computed or whether the output is sorted/filtered, so some extra behavioral transparency is still absent.

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, compact, front-loaded sentence. It begins with the action verb 'Prioritize', states the resource and the selection logic, and wastes no tokens on needless filler. It is concise without losing essential meaning.

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 that the tool has eight self-describing parameters, an output schema, read-only and idempotent annotations, the contextual burden is relatively low. The description covers the purpose and primary attention criterion. A small gap remains in that it does not explain what 'prioritize' means semantically — sort vs. filter vs. assign action — but schema and output schema likely fill most of this gap.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is high. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level information and does not connect its qualitative criteria (e.g., 'budget pressure') to specific parameters like budget. All parameters are already well described in the schema, so no more credit is due.

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 ('Prioritize') and clearly identifies the resource ('Martin runs') and the selection criteria ('verification, lifecycle, and budget pressure'). It also states that the target is runs needing 'operator or agent attention', which strongly hints at the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like martin_list_runs or martin_status, so it misses the top tier.

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 phrase 'that need operator or agent attention' implies a concrete use case, so an agent can be reasonably expected to know when to call triage_runs for prioritization. However, there is no explicit guidance about when this should be preferred over alternative sibling tools (e.g., martin_list_runs), nor any direction to avoid it in some scenario. The intent is clear but under-specified.

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