run_agent

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 adds valuable context that the agent 'will run all enabled actions once,' clarifying scope and singularity. However, it lacks safety information (side effects, idempotency, prerequisites like agent state) that would be necessary for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no redundant words. The first states the trigger action, and the second clarifies behavioral scope. It is appropriately front-loaded, though slightly more detail on prerequisites or returns could improve utility.

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 simple schema (1 parameter) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the core action. However, it omits what the tool returns or signals upon completion, which is relevant information when no output schema exists to document the response.

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%, documenting the agentId parameter as 'The agent ID to run'. The description does not add additional semantics, constraints, or formatting details for the parameter, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specific verbs ('Trigger', 'execution') and identifies the resource ('agent'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like pause_agent or resume_agent, which also control agent execution state.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to trigger immediate execution vs. pausing/resuming). The word 'immediate' implies real-time invocation but does not clarify selection criteria among sibling execution controls.

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