run_ready_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal bounded wave execution and governance re-evaluation, but it omits crucial traits: whether execution mutates state, whether steps can be rolled back, how failures are handled, or whether execution is idempotent. Too much is left to inference for a tool that executes work.

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 a single compact sentence and front-loads the primary action. However, phrases like 'current governance' and 'bounded dependency waves' are jargon-heavy and under-specified, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It is concise but not optimally informative.

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?

This is a non-trivial tool: it evaluates governance, executes DAG nodes, has multiple bounded execution parameters, and has no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain return behavior, error conditions, relationship to other saga tools, or side effects. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently and correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'bounded' waves, which loosely maps to max_steps and max_parallel, and 'current governance' implies the saga_id context, but it never explicitly explains what each parameter means or how they interact. This is minimal compensation, not adequate parameter guidance.

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 names a clear action—re-evaluate governance and execute ready DAG nodes—and introduces distinctive concepts like bounded dependency waves that suggest a batch execution engine rather than a single-step executor. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling execute_saga_step, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for executing ready nodes in a DAG, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over execute_saga_step, plan_saga_step, or related saga tools. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or alternative routing cues.

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