run_behavior

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

Annotations declare the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds almost no operational detail. It does not say whether execution blocks until completion, how timeout_seconds affects the run, what happens on failure, or whether a behavior must first be submitted.

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 sentence with no redundant filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, though brevity contributes to its lack of completeness.

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?

With no output schema and annotations that carry almost no behavioral information, the description shoulders the full burden and falls short. Missing details include return behavior, error conditions, relationship to submit_behavior/validate_behavior, and the meaning of 'monitored robot interface'.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions name or timeout_seconds. The term 'saved behavior' helps infer that name identifies a saved behavior, but timeout_seconds is left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific action ('Run') and resource ('a saved behavior'), so the tool's core purpose is identifiable. However, it doesn't distinguish run_behavior from sibling start_program, which could also be interpreted as executing something saved.

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 statement about when to use this tool instead of start_program, get_behavior, or validate_behavior. The phrase 'saved behavior' implies a prerequisite exists, but no conditions or exclusions are given.

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