run_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: the complete workflow, trust model (worker output never trusted, rejection reasons), safety cap (maxBatches), and a specific return value for missing private loops. This is comprehensive for a complex tool.

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 dense with information and front-loads the key supervisor role and opt-in requirement. While it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), it efficiently communicates a complex process in a single paragraph without waste.

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 the tool's high complexity and no output schema, the description covers workflow, trust model, and a specific error return. However, it lacks detail on successful return format or other possible error states, which is a gap for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 covers 3 of 4 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context beyond schema, e.g., warning that maxBatches is a safety cap not completion, and explaining stopFile as operator stop signal. However, it does not detail runId or the nested config structure further.

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 it drives a full campaign autonomously, listing the detailed pipeline steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like loop_next or reverify_run, which are individual steps, and explicitly mentions it's an 'AUTONOMOUS SUPERVISOR'.

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?

Mentions opt-in environment variable (SUPER_LOOP_ALLOW_EXEC=1) as a prerequisite and contrasts with the standalone CLI. Implicitly suggests use when full automation is desired, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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