Run Tool

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

The annotations provide no safety hints because all flags are false, and the description does not add important behavioral context. A generic runner that invokes arbitrary tools should disclose potential side effects, execution behavior, or return flow, but the description only says 'Run', which is under-specified for a dynamic dispatch 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and enriched with one practical discovery tip. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema.

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 generic tool runner, the description covers the core runtime action and the important discover-first fallback. The absence of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the dynamic nature of the tool, but a note on what the response contains would have been helpful.

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 parameter meaning already comes from the schema. The description adds only the generic phrase 'by name with JSON arguments', which does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: run an AirMCP tool by name with JSON arguments. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by mentioning discover_tools as the complementary discovery step.

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 gives explicit guidance to use discover_tools first when the tool is not visible in tools/list. It does not list exhaustive when-not-to-use scenarios, but the main alternative discovery flow is clearly stated.

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