Run cycle

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, runtime cost, non-idempotency, or state changes. For a model execution tool, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded but under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It omits critical usage and behavior details, so it does not earn its place as sufficient content.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks necessary context such as preconditions, error conditions, or how outputs are returned. It is too sparse for an agent to select it confidently.

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 description only hints at 'selected outputs' (likely outputs_of_interest) without explaining session_id or use_driver. Most parameters are left undocumented.

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 ('Run') and resource ('cycle model') and notes that it returns outputs, which states the core action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_outputs or sweep_inputs, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., an existing session from create_cycle_model), or steps like setting inputs first. The description offers no contextual use cases.

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