Run Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow behavior beyond that — the tool blocks further work until questions are answered, questions are asked interactively, and the confirmed field signals whether the flow is done.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then when-to-use, then returns, in three tight chunks. The Returns block restates what the output schema already provides, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 a read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, ordering constraint, interaction model, and handoff to run_options_save. Only the redundant return-value restatement keeps it from being fully optimal.

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?

Only one optional parameter (app_dir) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains reading current values and omitting before scaffolding. The description adds nothing about app_dir, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (every optional part of a run) and enumerates the fields returned: question, kind, choices, default, current value. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling run_options_save, which is named as the follow-up.

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?

Explicit sequencing: 'BEFORE any other work when the user says run', instructs how to present questions (one at a time or checklist), and names the routing target run_options_save. Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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