Run zcode agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that zcode can read/edit files, run shell commands and git, and that it returns a response plus a session_id for follow-ups. It does not explicitly warn about autonomous state changes or side effects, but the description clearly indicates the agent operates inside the directory with file and command access.

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 three sentences with no fluff: purpose first, then capabilities, then return value and follow-up behavior. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, and the structure front-loads the core action.

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 a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the key return format (final answer + session_id) and the operational context (works inside a directory, can modify files and run commands). It does not mention topics like authentication, cost, or failure modes, but the rich schema covers parameter details well.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds some useful context by linking 'given directory' to cwd and explaining that session_id supports follow-ups in the same conversation, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delegate a development task to the zcode coding agent.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by describing what zcode_run does (running an agent) and what it returns (final answer + session_id), rather than checking or managing sessions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to delegate a development task to the zcode agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives like zcode_check or zcode_sessions or state when not to use this tool, but the run-vs-check/session distinction is strongly implied by the described behavior.

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