run_iteration

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

The description outlines the sequential steps (patch, reload/restart note, validate) and mentions the return values (applied patch and verdict). However, it lacks detail on what 'restart note' means, the behavior when no patch is provided (does it skip straight to reload?), error states, side effects, or permissions. Since annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, the description carries the full burden and falls short of full transparency.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's workflow precisely, and the second explains its purpose. No superfluous information.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on parameter roles, error handling, and the exact format of the 'verdict' return value. For a core tool in a loop, more comprehensive documentation would be beneficial.

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?

The description adds process context ('optional patch' implies file+content are for patching, 'reload' corresponds to the boolean parameter) but does not explain all five parameters (e.g., rationale lacks any description). Schema coverage is 60% (parameters have descriptions in schema), so baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value without fully compensating for undocumented parameters.

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 function: 'One full iteration: optional patch -> reload (or a restart note) -> validate. Returns the applied patch and the verdict.' It identifies the specific verb ('run iteration'), resource (an iteration of edit/observe/fix loop), and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate, patch_file, reload_file by combining all steps.

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 implies usage as 'the core of the edit/observe/fix loop', suggesting it is intended for iterative development cycles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this composite tool versus calling individual sibling tools (e.g., patch_file, reload_file, validate) separately, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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