run_research_job

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 states that execution is asynchronous, that the call returns immediately, that stored parameters are used, that an outline acts as user confirmation, and that outline_confirm_strict may reject reruns within a time window. This is detailed and actionable.

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 front-loads the core action, then adds scenario, condition, and async behavior in a compact structured format. Every sentence contributes operational value, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter async lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, applicable statuses, exclusions, confirmation behavior, and the polling path. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and know what to expect afterward.

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%, but the single required parameter job_id is meaningfully contextualized as the identifier of the existing job to rerun and as the key passed to get_research_job for polling. It does not provide a dedicated parameter definition or format details, but the meaning is recoverable from the prose.

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 a specific verb and resource: rerun/start an existing research job in pending, planned, or failed status. It also names sibling lifecycle tools such as create_research_job, recover_research_jobs, and plan_research, making the tool's role in the lifecycle unambiguous.

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 enumerates when to use the tool: jobs created by create_research_job, zombie jobs recovered by recover_research_jobs, and failed jobs retried with original parameters. It also gives a clear when-not case: jobs without an outline should first go through plan_research, and polling should be done via get_research_job.

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