run_runner2_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully warns that this never launches RuNNer (contradicting the 'run_' in the name) and states a fail-closed posture, but it never clarifies what 'fail-closed' does on FAIL/QUARANTINE, nor how the schema's execute/executable parameters reconcile with the claim that RuNNer is never launched.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is a strength. However, one dense clause is under-sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, so brevity comes at the cost of appropriateness.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the description is far short of what a 9-parameter, zero-annotation tool requires. It omits parameter behavior, prerequisites, origin of gate_evidence/frozen_manifest, and execution-safety details.

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% and the description explains none of the 9 parameters. Key inputs like records, gate_evidence, frozen_manifest, work_dir and executable are left entirely to the agent to guess, and the tension between dry_run (default true) and execute (default false) is unaddressed.

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 and artifact: it returns a dry-run plan for RuNNer 2, scoped to Al-only and fail-closed. This lets an agent distinguish it from an actual execution tool, though the 'Al-only'/'2G'/'fail-closed' jargon is unexplained and no sibling (e.g. run_mace_pipeline) is named as contrast.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only orientation is the implied contrast that this produces a plan rather than running anything; the agent must infer when to prefer this over get_pipeline_status, run_mace_pipeline, or freeze_verified_dataset.

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