run_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the asynchronous behavior and the immediate return of an execution_id. It does not, however, detail error conditions or side effects (e.g., if agent_id is invalid), but it covers the essential behavioral aspects.

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 concise and well-structured. It begins with a clear summary, then provides a note about the execution_id and follow-up tools, followed by a bullet-style Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return of an execution_id and references sibling tools for further operations. It covers all parameters and the async nature. It could mention error handling or validation but is largely complete for its complexity.

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% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: agent_id (UUID), prompt (user message), thread_id (memory continuity), and params (optional extra parameters). This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema's minimal titles.

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 tool starts an asynchronous agent run and returns immediately. The verb 'Start' and resource 'agent run' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_run_status' and 'get_run_logs' by indicating their purpose for follow-up.

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 tells you when to use this tool (to start an agent run) and what to use next (get_run_status for polling, get_run_logs for output). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when a synchronous run is needed or when the agent doesn't exist.

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