chaprola_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool executes a compiled program and gives an async threshold. It does not disclose whether the execution has side effects, what happens after completion, how jobs are monitored, or any error/return behavior. The async tip is helpful but insufficient for a tool with no safety hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line description plus a single usage tip is inadequate. The agent is left without information about what a compiled .PR program does, what the execution returns (e.g., job_id format), or how to handle failures. The absence of an output schema makes the description's silence on return values particularly problematic.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the async_exec parameter to a concrete condition ('large datasets >100K records'), which is beyond the schema's simple 'If true, run asynchronously...' This augments one parameter meaningfully, even though it doesn't address all seven.

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 clearly states the action: 'Execute a compiled .PR program.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like chaprola_compile (which compiles) and chaprola_run_status (which checks status). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides a clear situational guideline: 'Use async:true for large datasets (>100K records).' This gives context for when to set a key parameter, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The guidance is useful but limited to the async decision.

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