run_tool

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this tool can perform destructive operations. The description adds value by mentioning 'advanced operations' and referencing external documentation for a full tool list, but it doesn't disclose specific behavioral traits like what types of operations are destructive, authentication needs, or rate limits beyond what annotations already cover.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and external reference. There's minimal waste, though the external doc link could be more integrated, and it lacks examples or more specific context.

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 the tool's complexity (a generic runner for advanced operations with destructive potential) and the lack of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It mentions external docs for a full tool list, but doesn't explain return values, error handling, or specific use cases, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for safe and effective invocation.

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 fully documents the three parameters (script_name, args, platform). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of 'advanced operations' or how args are formatted. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Run any Synter tool by name' with the specific verb 'run' and resource 'Synter tool'. It distinguishes this from siblings by mentioning 'advanced operations not covered by other tools', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'list_campaigns' or 'create_campaign'.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this for advanced operations not covered by other tools', which implies when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, and the reference to external docs ('See docs.syntermedia.ai') is helpful but not fully integrated into the description.

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