tarn_run_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output type (AgentReport, artifact paths) but gives no details on side effects, permissions, blocking behavior, or error handling. For a tool that runs a suite, this is insufficient.

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 three sentences long, each contributing value: action, preferred usage, and equivalence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain run behavior (e.g., synchronous vs asynchronous), failure modes, or how to interpret the results, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Run a suite') and resource ('report_mode=agent pre-selected, surfacing the compact AgentReport (NAZ-412) plus artifact paths'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tarn_run' by specifying the pre-selected mode and the compact report, making the purpose clear.

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 explicitly states 'Preferred entry point when the caller will iterate on failures,' providing a clear when-to-use hint. It also mentions equivalence to 'tarn run --agent,' but does not elaborate on when not to use it or alternative tools.

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