Run Agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the internal process (loading Skills, injecting role settings, executing the task), but it omits any details about return values, side effects, or potential errors. This is partial transparency.

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 a tight two-sentence explanation that front-loads the core action and includes a useful behavioral note. No redundant information or fluff.

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 run tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the execution process but doesn't mention what the tool returns or any post-execution behavior, which is essential for an agent to know. The lack of output schema makes this a significant gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't elaborate on the format or constraints of 'task' or 'agent', relying solely on the schema's parameter descriptions.

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's function: '让一个 Agent 执行任务' (let an Agent execute a task), with the specific resource being an Agent. It also adds distinct context by explaining that the Agent loads its bound Skills and injects role settings, which differentiates it from sibling tools like run_skill or run_flow.

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 implies the use case (running an agent) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_skill or run_flow. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where a different tool would be preferred.

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