run_capsule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's function (execution) and workflow context, but lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or whether execution is asynchronous. It mentions a 'typical workflow' implying monitoring is required, which adds some context, but doesn't fully disclose operational behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by mode-specific instructions and a workflow summary. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (execution with multiple modes), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like execution semantics (e.g., async nature, resource implications) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds significant semantic value by explaining the two execution modes (capsule vs. pipeline) and mapping optional parameters (data_assets, parameters, named_parameters, processes, nextflow_profile) to each mode. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints beyond what's implied, leaving some gaps.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('execute a capsule or pipeline') and resources ('capsule', 'pipeline'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_capsule' (read-only) or 'wait_until_completed' (monitoring). It explicitly covers two execution modes, making the purpose 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 explicit usage guidance: it distinguishes between capsule and pipeline execution modes, specifies required parameters (capsule_id or pipeline_id), and outlines a typical workflow involving sibling tools (run_capsule, wait_until_completed, list_computation_results, get_result_file_urls). This clearly indicates when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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