run_sop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that each call returns one step, that current_step must be incremented to advance, and that all actions in the step must be executed (not just read). It also mandates supplying step_output when continuing. This is rich, actionable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses short, direct sentences and scannable formatting (IMPORTANT warning) to highlight critical execution requirements. Every sentence provides necessary operational guidance without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core usage loop, prerequisites, and required outputs, which is strong for a stateful tool without an output schema. However, it does not explain how to determine when the SOP is complete or what the returned step content looks like structurally (e.g., text vs. structured actions). This is a minor gap but not severe given the detailed procedural guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no new meaning beyond what is in the schema, merely restating the same information about current_step and step_output. It reinforces the stateful usage but does not deepen parameter understanding, so the baseline 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 function: 'Start or advance a Standard Operating Procedure step by step.' It also specifies the resource (SOP) and the step-wise execution model. The usage of 'discover available SOPs' via list_resources helps distinguish it from sibling tools like read_resource or publish_sop.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use list_resources to discover SOPs before calling this tool, providing a clear prerequisite. It also explains the step-by-step advancement process and when step_output is required. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like read_resource or submit_sop_feedback, though the workflow is strong enough to imply appropriate usage.

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