ghost_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses retry behavior tied to max_retries, chaining substitution semantics, type preservation, window-following behavior across title changes, stale-title resolution, title_drift in responses, and the cost of fixed sleeps.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the primary purpose, uses clear CHAINING and SPEED sections, and includes a concrete example. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

For a complex orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers step semantics, chaining, type behavior, window anchoring, retries, and wait guidance, giving an agent enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret key response behavior like title_drift.

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 only 60%, and the description compensates by explaining the steps format, the meaning of ${steps.N.path} references, and the effect of max_retries. However, it does not add much detail about json_flow, script vs json_flow differences, or stop_on_error behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 operation: executing a declarative step-by-step flow in one round-trip, with each step being an {op, ...params} invocation. This clearly distinguishes it from the many single-step sibling tools by emphasizing orchestration and batching.

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?

Clearly conveys when to use the tool: when multiple steps should run together in one round-trip. It also gives explicit guidance to use ghost_wait with 'for' instead of a fixed sleep. It does not explicitly say 'use a single sibling tool for one action', but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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