run_agent

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It explains step-by-step reasoning and two execution modes, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network calls if anysearch tools are used) or latency considerations. The behavioral description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with paragraphs, bullet-point examples, and tool categories. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly long, every part adds context. Could be slightly more concise but is effectively organized.

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 the tool's complexity as an orchestrator, the description covers key aspects: purpose, reasoning process, execution modes, and dependencies (LLM config). It lists available tools. Missing details like error handling or limitations, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 100% for the single 'task' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value through examples but does not elaborate on task format or constraints beyond what the schema says ('Be specific'). The added semantics are marginal.

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 explicitly states the tool runs a mini ReAct agent that autonomously uses all available tools. It provides a clear verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are individual tools, while this is an orchestrator). Examples further clarify its purpose.

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 description lists example tasks and explains when to use the tool (multi-step tasks requiring reasoning). It also notes conditions for LLM vs rule-based mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond listing sibling tools.

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