Run Routine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states what is returned on failure (failed stage, snapshot dir, resume hint), but omits side effects, required permissions, idempotency, and whether running a routine is mutating or destructive—critical for a 'run' operation.

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 sentences with no filler, and the failure behavior is front-loaded after the core purpose. It is structurally efficient, though arguably too terse given the four undocumented parameters.

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?

The existing output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, input semantics are entirely absent and no usage context is provided. For a four-parameter execution tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this is incomplete.

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 names no parameters. It loosely alludes to a 'resume hint' but never maps it to the resume_from parameter, and says nothing about name, device, or params, leaving all four inputs undocumented.

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 clear verb 'Run' and resource 'routine', but provides no scope or differentiation from siblings such as tasker_run or list_routines. An agent cannot tell from the description why it should choose this tool over tasker_run.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The sibling list_routines is presumably how routines are discovered, but the description does not say so. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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