cb_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes that confirm is required, hinting at a guarded operation, but it does not explain side effects, whether the run blocks or runs async, whether it mutates system state, or what happens after the run begins.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, and the Args section is compact with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to the lack of behavioral detail.

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 mutating run-type tool with zero annotations and a free-form payload, the description is too incomplete. It does not mention when to call it, what actions are valid, whether it is destructive, whether it is asynchronous, or what the output represents. The presence of an output schema helps somewhat, but the description alone is not enough for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by calling payload 'Run arguments (action, software, …)' and saying confirm is required, but it does not define the payload structure, enumerate valid action values, or clarify what 'confirm' actually confirms. The 'confirm: Required' wording also conflicts with the schema's default false and absence from required fields.

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 and resource: 'Start a CustomBuild run' with example modes build/update/rewrite, making the core action clear. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling cb_* tools like cb_actions or cb_software, but the 'Start a run' wording distinguishes execution from inspection well enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cb_actions, cb_updates, or cb_software. The description implies usage from the name and first sentence but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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