run_fixture

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

Annotations are present but all set to false, offering no safety hints. The description adds 'deterministically' and 'in-memory', which are useful behavioral traits (reproducibility, non-persistence), but it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, or lifecycle implications. Since annotations exist, the bar is lower, and some credit is given for this added context.

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 sentence that conveys the core function and two key distinguishing traits (deterministic, in-memory). It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it appropriately concise for a straightforward run tool.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description lacks context about the run lifecycle, whether a prepared fixture is required, how parameters influence stages, and how this differs from host-run siblings. For a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention any of the four parameters (analysts, as_of_date, risk_rounds, debate_rounds) or explain how they affect the run. The only indirect hint is that 'all stages' implies rounds/controls, which is insufficient.

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 runs all stages deterministically and stores the in-memory result and events. It identifies the resource ('all stages' of the fixture) and the action, and the 'deterministically' and 'in-memory' qualifiers help distinguish it from sibling run tools, though it doesn't explicitly name the fixture or contrasts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_host_run or prepare_fixture. The description only states what it does; there are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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