run_basic

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: issuing `NEW`, requiring line numbers, boot/settle cycle budgets, and returning rows/text. It does not detail error handling or timeout behavior, which is a gap.

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 compact and well-organized. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains parameters and return values in separate sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

Given 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main workflow, parameter meanings, and return format. It lacks explicit error/timeout behavior, but the overall completeness is high.

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 description adds meaning to all key parameters: `program` (full source, no auto-numbering), `boot_cycles` (time for NEW-to-prompt), and `settle_cycles` (max execution budget). It also explains the output shape. The schema has 0% coverage, so this description is essential and thorough.

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, actionable statement: 'Type a BBC BASIC program, RUN it, and return the final screen.' It clearly identifies the tool as a convenience wrapper around type_input and cycle runs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like type_input or run_for_cycles.

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 explains that this is a convenience wrapper around `type_input` + cycle runs, which implies the manual alternative. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer other run tools, but the context is clear.

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