run_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals non-obvious conditional behavior: host execution when NPUs are available, sim Docker re-routing otherwise, and refusal with guidance when no sim image exists. This is valuable, though it omits potential side effects like file modifications or stdout/stderr behavior.

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 two paragraphs and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important routing details. It is concise and each sentence contributes, though the internal reference 'see _SIM_RUN' is slightly opaque.

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?

For a complex task runner with no annotations, it covers the critical routing logic and refusal cases, and references list_repositories()/list_tasks() for parameter semantics. Output schema handles return-value documentation, but the description lacks explicit sibling differentiation and discussion of failure modes beyond no-sim-image.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., extra_args appended verbatim, timeout range 1–7200). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description clearly states 'Run a configured task in a repository' with a specific verb and resource, and the routing details further specify it executes build/test tasks. This distinguishes it from arbitrary command running (run_command) and other sibling tools.

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 contextual behavior (NPU-based routing) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like run_command or route_task, nor does it offer exclusions or clear use-case boundaries beyond those implicit in 'configured task'.

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