run_solver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the solver run is blocking or long-running, whether it modifies model state, what side effects occur, or how results become available. This is a significant gap for a solver-invocation tool.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the essential action immediately in a single short sentence with no filler. It is appropriately minimal for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

While an output schema exists and may document return values, the description omits key contextual details: prerequisites, whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous, how to monitor progress, and any relationship to solver_status or evaluate. For a tool with no annotations, this is under-specified.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'study_tag' and the phrase 'for a study.' It does not explain how to obtain a valid study tag, what format it should take, or how it relates to add_study or study-related tools.

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 states a specific action ('Run the solver') and a specific target ('for a study'), making the tool's basic function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_study and solver_status by this direct phrasing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool relative to siblings, nor any stated preconditions such as the study needing to exist before running. The phrase 'for a study' only implies that a study must already be created, but no explicit usage context or exclusion is provided.

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