freebuff_run

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 does this well by explicitly stating that the default agent 'cannot modify anything' and that the alternative agent can 'edit files and run commands,' plus it discloses return content and session persistence. It doesn't cover failure/cost edge cases, but the core behavioral risks are transparent.

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 short paragraphs with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by safety-relevant detail and session continuation. It is concise and free of filler, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential launch behavior, the read-only vs editing distinction, the return value, and conversation continuation. It doesn't include examples or error/edge-case details, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all eight parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds useful context for 'agent' and 'session_id' (default behavior, continuation), but does not add meaning beyond the schema for cost_mode, max_steps, timeout_seconds, or force_resume. 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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('Freebuff coding agent'), and a context ('inside a workspace folder'). It clearly differentiates this from the sibling tools (freebuff_status, freebuff_delete, freebuff_stop, freebuff_sessions), which manage existing runs rather than launching new ones.

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 explains when to use the default read-only agent vs the editing agent ('Pass agent: 'codebuff/base@0.0.16' to let the agent edit files and run commands'), giving condition-based usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools, but the purpose separation is clear enough.

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