Start Hermes run

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond these: it discloses the specific side effect of writing redacted request/result/response receipts, and specifies the permission gates (api_call tier with live, model, agent-tool, external-side-effect gates). This adds meaningful behavioral context about what happens when invoked (external side effects possible, receipts written). Sufficient depth for a non-destructive, non-read-only tool.

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 efficient sentence that packs endpoint, action, purpose, side effect, and permission requirements. It's compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor point: 'Typed POST /v1/runs wrapper' is a bit dense for non-Hermes-savvy readers, but given the target audience of agents working with Hermes tools, this is acceptable. Zero wasted words.

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 7-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and an open-world hint annotation, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does, its effects (receipts), and its permission gates. There's an output schema present so return values don't need elaboration. The description is complete enough for an agent to safely invoke this tool. Not perfect - it could mention the dry_run validation pathway more explicitly, but the schema covers that.

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 each of the 7 parameters already having descriptive text in the schema. The description adds the prompt parameter's core purpose ('from a prompt'). Since the schema fully documents each parameter with defaults and descriptions, the description doesn't need to add much more; baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it's a typed POST /v1/runs wrapper that starts a Hermes agent run from a prompt. It names the specific API endpoint, the action (starts a run), the input (prompt), and mentions side effects (writing redacted receipts). This distinguishes it from siblings like hermes_api_runs_get or hermes_api_runs_stop.

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 clearly conveys it's for starting runs from a prompt, and requires api_call tier with live, model, agent-tool, and external-side-effect gates. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it versus alternatives like hermes_api_jobs_create or hermes_api_chat_completions, but the run context plus the verbose gate requirements provide reasonable usage context. The dry_run param in schema allows validation without a live run, but this isn't highlighted as a usage strategy.

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