run_chain_now

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the manual trigger logging and scheduling override, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. More detail would be needed for full transparency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, with no extraneous words. Every word adds value: 'immediately', 'outside its schedule', and 'logged as MANUAL trigger' are all meaningful.

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 simple one-parameter trigger, the description covers the core behavior, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it omits return values, error conditions, and any preconditions. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 has one required parameter (chain_id) and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose or format; it only references 'a chain'. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the low coverage demands compensation that is absent.

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 ('Fire a chain'), the resource ('chain'), and the specific context ('outside its schedule'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_worker_now. The verb 'fire' is specific enough in this context.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: immediate execution outside the normal schedule, and mentions it is logged as MANUAL. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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