run_case

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden yet says nothing about side effects, whether the fixture is mutated, expected runtime, or cost. The presence of a sibling 'monitor' suggests long-running execution, but the description never says so or tells the agent whether to follow up with monitor.

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?

A single sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is compact, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere rather than being deliberate economy.

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 an execution-launcher tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero documented parameters, nine words is far from sufficient. An agent cannot tell what happens on success, whether execution is synchronous or async, or how the two parameters interact.

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 only loosely maps 'use-case engine' to case_id and says nothing at all about the optional 'goal' parameter — what it does, whether it overrides case defaults, or what format it takes.

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 names a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('one use-case engine') with a scoping qualifier ('against the Northlamp world fixture'). 'One use-case engine' implicitly contrasts with the run_all sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly. 'Northlamp world fixture' is unexplained jargon, but the core action is legible.

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 statement of when to choose this over list_cases, run_all, or monitor, and no preconditions given. The singular 'one' hints at a batch-vs-single distinction with run_all, but the agent must infer it rather than being told.

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