run_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: calling with no `name` is a no-op that instead returns a list of stored specs with their check counts. That is genuinely useful information beyond the schema. It does not cover failure behavior, side effects, or what happens to state on a run, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the edge case. No filler, and the parenthetical sibling reference is efficient routing information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does most of the necessary work: it names the return payload ('the assert_spec result') and the degenerate-case return. It assumes the agent already knows what an assert_spec result contains and what a 'spec' is, which is a minor completeness gap for a tool that produces verification output.

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% and the single parameter is just a nullable string, so the schema adds nothing. The description compensates by explaining the semantic effect of supplying versus omitting `name`, which is exactly the missing meaning. It still doesn't say what a valid spec name looks like or how names are discovered beyond the no-arg listing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') plus resource ('a stored spec') and explicitly cross-references save_spec, making it distinguishable from the sibling that stores specs and the sibling that asserts them. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear invocation condition: 'Without `name` nothing runs: the answer lists the stored specs.' That tells the agent what to expect when omitting the optional parameter. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer run_spec over assert_spec, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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