ouroboros_execute_seed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a seed is executed, but does not mention whether execution is synchronous, whether it creates sessions, triggers QA, or modifies state. It gives no context about side effects, long-running behavior, or error handling, which is especially important for a complex tool with 14 parameters.

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 two sentences and directly states the purpose and a key usage warning. It is not bloated and the most important information is front-loaded. However, for a tool this complex, the brevity feels more like under-specification than skillful conciseness, so I would not give a perfect score.

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 tool has 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools. The description only provides two sentences of high-level context. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it blocks, how it relates to start_execute_seed, or any operational caveats. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema describes all 14 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain each one. The description adds conceptual context for what a seed is, which supports seed_path and seed_content, but beyond that it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool executes a seed (task specification), using a specific verb and resource. It also identifies itself as the handler for 'ooo run' commands. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool ouroboros_start_execute_seed, which likely runs the same operation asynchronously.

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 only usage guidance is a warning not to run 'ooo' in the shell and to use this MCP tool instead. It provides no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like ouroboros_start_execute_seed, ouroboros_auto, or ouroboros_start_auto. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given.

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