kalei_run_act

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it specifies the exact completion signal ('environmentComplete', not 'done'), states that a finished environment refuses further actions, and directs the agent to the next step. It doesn't detail all response fields or failure modes, but the key behavioral rules are explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence for critical behavioral guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant filler.

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 an action-submission tool in a run loop, the description captures the essential workflow: submit a decision, check environmentComplete, call kalei_run_next when done, and avoid re-acting on a finished environment. It doesn't explain the full response shape or the run_id parameter, but the schema and the completion-field guidance cover most agent needs.

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 75%, so the schema already documents action, params, and session_id. The description reinforces the 'one decision' nature and the connection to state.availableActions, but it adds little about run_id or parameter formatting beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit one decision.' It also references the environment lifecycle and names kalei_run_next as the follow-up tool, distinguishing it from sibling run tools. This is enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when it fits in the workflow.

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 usage context: watch for 'environmentComplete' in the response.meant to be called repeatedly for decisions, and after completion you should invoke kalei_run_next. It also warns against acting on a finished environment. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives, but it covers the main decision point clearly.

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