Run OMP Task with Compact Result (Preferred for Single Task)

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

The description explains the creation, waiting, and return behavior (compact summary vs. job_id/status running) beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation), and the description corroborates and elaborates on the lifecycle. No contradiction with 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 is four sentences, front-loads purpose, and every sentence adds value: preferred entrypoint, process, success return, timeout case. No extraneous words.

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 description covers the core behavior and return values, which is sufficient given the output schema. However, it omits important behavioral details like retry logic (max_attempts), overall timeout (timeout_minutes), and the role of acceptance/supervisor_brief. For a tool with 7 parameters, a more complete description would address these.

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 57% schema coverage, the schema already describes four parameters. The description only mentions wait_seconds default (60s) and does not explain goal, cwd, acceptance, max_attempts, timeout_minutes, or supervisor_brief. It misses the opportunity to add meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the less-documented parameters.

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 is the 'preferred entrypoint for single substantive execution tasks,' specifies the action (creates a delegated OMP task, launches runner, waits), and differentiates itself from siblings like omp_run_batch_compact by focusing on single tasks.

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 positions this tool as the preferred choice for single tasks and references subsequent polling with omp_wait for running jobs. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like omp_delegate or omp_run_batch_compact, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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