chaprola_run_each

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the program can mutate data, whether execution is asynchronous, or what happens on errors. Running a program against every record could be destructive, and the description does not mention any safeguards or side effects.

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 primary action, and the second sentence adds valuable use-case context. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, many siblings, no annotations, no output schema). The description explains what the tool does and when to use it, but omits critical behavioral information such as potential side effects, execution lifecycle, or how to retrieve results. This leaves the agent under-informed for a bulk processing tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already explains file, where, program, project, and where_logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool runs a compiled .PR program against every record in a data file, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like chaprola_run and chaprola_update_record by emphasizing iteration over all records and listing use cases (scoring, bulk updates, conditional logic).

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'Use this for scoring, bulk updates, conditional logic across records.' It also references CHAPRPG for legacy context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for single-record runs or simple queries.

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