Run Cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about side effects (state mutation in the notebook, execution ordering, whether it blocks), authentication needs, or the session-binding requirement hinted at in the schema. 'Run' implies execution but no consequences are disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the key action front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's execution side effects.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a state-mutating execution tool with zero annotations the description is inadequate. It omits side effects, session requirements, and any interaction with output-retrieval siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so all three parameters (cell_id, server_url, session_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Run (execute) an existing cell'), which distinguishes it from create_cell, edit_cell, and delete_cell by action. However, it does not differentiate it from other read/observation siblings like get_cell_outputs or get_cell_data, leaving the scope slightly ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that running a cell is the prerequisite for retrieving outputs via get_cell_outputs, and no indication of session prerequisites. The agent must infer all usage context.

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