Run Pipeline

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it requires human approval, is resumable, and may include an exploit phase (explicitly gated by scope). It also mentions that finished phases are skipped, which is a useful side effect. It does not fully enumerate all pipeline actions, but the provided information aligns well with the annotations and adds detail beyond them.

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 concise, containing a brief summary line followed by a short technical paragraph. It is well-structured with clear line breaks. No redundant or filler content is present, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 functionality and parameter usage, but it does not mention any output schema or return behavior. Given the pipeline's complexity and the presence of an output schema, this omission leaves a significant gap in understanding what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It is functional but 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining three of the four parameters: 'phases', 'from_phase', and 'exploit'. However, the 'target' parameter is left entirely unexplained, which is a notable gap. The partial explanation is valuable but not complete.

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's primary function: running the engagement pipeline. It adds key qualifiers like 'gated, resumable, in-process' which help differentiate it from a single-phase runner. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like run_phase, leaving a slight ambiguity in tool selection.

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 explains how to control phases and exploitation, giving partial usage guidance. It illustrates parameter usage (e.g., 'phases restricts to a comma list') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over run_phase or any other alternative. The guidance is present but not comparative.

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