run

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

The description discloses an asynchronous behavior via job_id and polling reference, but with no annotations, it doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions, or execution environment. This leaves gaps for a tool that runs scripts.

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 and front-loaded with its primary purpose, includes a useful example, and separates Args clearly. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

It covers the main flow: running a script, getting a job_id, and polling via check_job. It references search_scripts for discovery. However, it could mention error handling or what happens if the script fails, though the output schema reduces the need for return detail.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: vending_code's source and example, and user_input's purpose with a pointer to the script's input_schema. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 runs a marketplace script by vending code, with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings like run_code by specifying 'marketplace script' and referencing search_scripts for finding the vending code.

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 provides clear context: use after obtaining a vending code from search_scripts and poll the result via check_job. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like run_code or state when not to use it.

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