create_host_run

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

Annotations are sparse (all false), so the description carries some burden. It adds valuable context like 'durable' and 'credential-free', which signal persistence and lack of authentication needs. However, it does not disclose side effects, return values, or behavior on existing runs, despite the output schema existing.

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 single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key attributes, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, many sibling tools, output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's role in the broader workflow, how it differs from similar tools, or what the output schema represents, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters. Although the schema has 8 parameters with clear names, the description fails to explain their purpose or relationship to the tool's behavior, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 action (Create) and the resource (host run), with distinguishing qualities ('durable', 'credential-free', 'decision-memory recall'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prepare_host_run' or 'start_host_run', which may cause some ambiguity about the exact stage in the workflow.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools covering host run lifecycle steps, the agent lacks clear decision rules for selecting 'create_host_run' over 'prepare_host_run' or 'start_host_run'.

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