run_solo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: workspace tool access is gated on working_dir/workspace_path, plus heartbeat reporting and inactivity watchdog protection. However, it omits critical operational traits such as whether the call blocks until completion, what happens when the watchdog fires or max_steps is hit, and any auth or cost implications of launching an autonomous agent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The conditional workspace detail is placed immediately after the purpose statement, which is good ordering, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a complex 9-parameter autonomous-execution tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid about blocking behavior, timeout outcomes, and the task/prompt/agent parameter relationships.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic effect of working_dir/workspace_path (agent gains file and shell tools) but says nothing about task vs. prompt, agent selection, max_steps, max_output_tokens, heartbeat_interval_seconds, or inactivity_timeout_seconds, leaving most parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run one agent to execute a task.' The phrase 'one agent' implicitly contrasts with the multi-agent sibling run_discussion, but the description never names that alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of run_discussion as the alternative for multi-agent work. The only conditional offered ('if working_dir is provided...') describes a behavioral effect of a parameter rather than when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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