run_read_tool

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

The description discloses the behavioral trait of refusing write/destructive actions, but with no annotations, it lacks details on what happens if a write is attempted, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 very short but fails to provide essential information about parameters and usage, making it under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded but incomplete.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'args' is for, what 'function' values are valid, or how to find them.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (app_id, function, args). The description does not explain what these parameters are or how to use them.

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 runs a READ-only tool of a deployed app, specifying the verb 'run' and resource 'READ-only tool'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that likely involve writing or destructive actions.

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 implies when to use (for read operations) and when not (refuses write/destructive). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the sibling tools suggest other operations (deploy, smoke, validate).

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