Run a remio Agent task

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

Annotations already disclose destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds that the agent may invoke capabilities and requires explicit confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, what capabilities mean, or what happens to the project directory, leaving gaps beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a pertinent safety note. No irrelevant details or repetition, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and open-world/destructive annotations. The description is too sparse to cover the likely side effects, return format, or parameter usage details. The confirmation note is helpful but insufficient for such a high-stakes operation.

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?

With 0% parameter coverage in the description, it must compensate. It provides semantics for 'project_dir', 'capabilities', and 'confirm', but leaves model, prompt, session_id, timeout_ms, and system_prompt entirely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 verb ('Runs') and resource ('a remio Agent'), with a project directory as the context. This distinguishes it from read/search/ask siblings, though it doesn't specify what the agent actually accomplishes beyond invoking capabilities.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remio_ask or remio_syscall. The only hint is that it may invoke capabilities and requires confirmation, which is more of a safety warning than a usage guideline.

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