run_until_prompt

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses chunked execution, row-anchoring behavior, the default prompt value, and the return fields. However, it does not explain behavior on max_cycles exhaustion or error conditions, so it is not fully transparent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: behavior, use case, differentiation, default, and return values. No 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 a 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, key behavior, defaults, and return values. It omits edge-case handling (e.g., what happens if max_cycles is hit), but the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `prompt` default and its matching behavior, and lists return fields, but provides no details on `max_cycles` or `chunk_cycles` beyond their names and defaults. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run in chunks until `prompt` appears at the start of a MODE 7 row.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling `run_until_text` by anchoring to row start, making the tool's purpose 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 identifies the common use case ('wait for BASIC to return to the `>` prompt') and contrasts with `run_until_text`, giving the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not enumerate every when-not scenario, but the distinction is sufficient.

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