Run Tool

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. For a tool that executes arbitrary tools, more transparency is expected.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second providing a key usage tip. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a usage tip, but it is sparse for a tool that runs other tools. It lacks information about return values (no output schema), error handling, or what happens if the tool fails or is not found. Could be more complete.

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 the schema already describes all three parameters. The description does not add any new meaning or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Per guidelines, high coverage yields a baseline of 3.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('an AirMCP tool by name with JSON arguments'). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'discover_tools' by suggesting to use it first if the tool is not visible. This provides precise purpose and differentiation.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use discover_tools first when the tool is not visible in tools/list,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative approaches for other scenarios, so it's slightly incomplete.

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