run_options

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content and the interactive pattern (one question at a time, or checklist), implicitly signaling a non-mutating read since persistence lives in run_options_save. However, it never states permissions/auth needs, whether the read is idempotent, or any failure modes, so it is only partially complete.

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 content is split into a payload sentence and an action sentence, with the actionable instruction placed last but clearly marked. The parenthetical enumeration is long but bounded by an ellipsis, so it stays efficient overall.

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 explaining return values is optional, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. The workflow (ask then save) is complete for an orchestrator step; the only real hole is the undocumentated app_dir parameter.

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?

There is one parameter (app_dir) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains when to supply it versus relying on the default. With coverage this low, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 names the resource (every optional part of a run) and enumerates the returned fields (question, kind, choices, default, current value), so an agent can tell it is a question-bank reader rather than a writer. The verb is implied rather than stated, and it is not explicitly contrasted against siblings, keeping it out of the 5 band.

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?

It states a clear trigger ('when the user says run'), an ordering constraint ('Call this BEFORE any other work'), a workflow step ('Ask the user each question one at a time'), and names the follow-up sibling run_options_save. That is explicit when-to-use plus a named next tool.

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