run_service

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a service is run and that input parameters are optional, but does not explain side effects, blocking behavior, state changes, or required permissions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and the optional parameter aspect, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits important context such as prerequisites, whether the run is synchronous or asynchronous, or how this tool relates to similar siblings. The schema covers parameters well, but broader operational context is missing.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (name, cluster, input_params). The description's reference to 'optional input parameters' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail; thus the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Run an existing service'. It distinguishes from creation tools by specifying 'existing', but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like start_application or run_action, which may have overlapping semantics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'optional input parameters' hints at a use case for parameterized runs, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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