relay_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 effectively describes key behaviors: it returns output, token usage, estimated provider cost, and trace URL, and clarifies cost tracking (provider bills, not RelayPlane fees). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and important behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides usage guidance, and the third clarifies cost details. It's concise with zero wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to cover purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits like return values and cost tracking. However, it lacks details on error cases, response format beyond listed items, or performance characteristics, which could be useful for a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Execute a single AI model call') and resource ('AI model'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like relay_models_list (list models) and relay_workflow_run (execute full workflows). It explicitly mentions testing prompts before building workflows, which helps differentiate its use case.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Useful for testing prompts before building full workflows'), implying alternatives like relay_workflow_run for production workflows. It also notes cost tracking specifics, helping users understand appropriate contexts for usage versus other tools.

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