Begins a browser work session by stating its purpose in one sentence, so the operator can see what each stretch of automated work is for.
Say in one sentence what this stretch of work is for, so the operator sees it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It hints that the operator will see the sentence, which is one small behavioral detail, but says nothing about what starting a run entails (state changes, side effects, permissions, or aftermath).
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?
It is a single compact sentence with no filler. However, it is front-loaded as a directive rather than as tool purpose, so its brevity does not make the definition more useful.
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 zero-parameter, annotation-free tool, the description should at minimum state what the tool does and when to call it. It gestures at declaring a work purpose but omits the action itself and any routing context, leaving the definition largely incomplete.
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?
The schema declares zero parameters, and the rubric sets the baseline at 4 for no-param tools. The description's implied 'one sentence' input has no corresponding schema field, but with no parameters to document, there is no schema compensation gap.
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 never states what start_run does—no verb like 'starts' or resource like 'run' appears. Instead it gives an instruction ('Say in one sentence...') that reads like a UI prompt and even implies an input the empty schema does not accept, making the tool's actual action missing and misleading.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as task.start or run_list. The agent is given no basis for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.