agent.run_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('run') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, expected runtime, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with no annotations and two parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear but under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity (a task-running tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'run' entails, what tasks are available, expected outputs, or how it integrates with the system. For a tool that likely involves execution logic, this is inadequate.

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 mentions 'case context' and 'analyst task', hinting at the parameters 'case_id' and 'task', but doesn't explain what values are valid for 'task' (e.g., types of tasks) or how 'case_id' relates to other tools. This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Run an analyst task over case context' specifies the verb ('run') and resource ('analyst task'), but is vague about what constitutes a 'task' or what 'run' entails. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'cases.get' but not clearly from 'agent.summarize_case' which might be a specific task type. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing case), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'agent.summarize_case' (which might be a specialized task). The description implies usage for tasks on cases but offers no further context.

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