run_shelf_tool

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (nodes get created), but says nothing about whether arbitrary tool code executes, undo/rollback behavior, error handling, or how kwargs and selection affect the run.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere rather than being over-trimmed.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, one sentence is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot know what kwargs accepts, how selection is interpreted, or what the returned node list looks like.

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% across five parameters, and the description explains none of them — not tool_name, kwargs, selection, dop_network, or parent_path. It adds no meaning beyond bare parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Run a shelf tool') and states its observable effect ('report the nodes it created'), which separates it from siblings like list_shelf_tools and get_shelf_tool_script. It never explicitly names those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 invoke this versus listing shelf tools or reading a tool's script, nor any prerequisites such as which context or network the tool must run in. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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