run

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavior: 'Blocks until done' and waits for the final answer. However, it omits failure modes, timeout behavior, cancellation, and side effects, which matter for a synchronous delegation 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?

Three short clauses, each earning its place: what the tool does, that it blocks, and when to choose the sibling instead. No filler or redundancy.

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 synchronous task-delegation tool, the description covers purpose, blocking behavior, and the key alternative. It lacks explicit return-format details and any mention of error behavior, but the schema covers all parameters and no output schema exists, so the remaining gap is modest.

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 all seven parameters already have individual descriptions. The prose adds no parameter-specific detail beyond characterizing the prompt as a quick task, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delegate a task to a pi agent and wait for the final answer.' It also explicitly contrasts with spawn, distinguishing this synchronous 'quick question' tool from the long-running sibling.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer `spawn` for long work and frames `run` as for quick questions. This gives the agent a clear decision rule for choosing between siblings.

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