run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key traits: the agent runs without approvals and with internet access, returns a job_id, and can block up to timeout_s. It omits the side-effect profile (file edits), permission/auth requirements, and concurrency or budget behavior, so substantial gaps remain for a spawning 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return/wait contract. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded, though the parenthetical 'sin aprobaciones, con internet' could be slightly tighter.

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 9-param async job-spawning tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 16 siblings, the definition covers the basics (what it launches, job_id, blocking) but leaves routing decisions and the output contract unaddressed, so an agent could easily pick the wrong sibling or misuse wait/timeout combinations.

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 coverage is 78%, just under the high-coverage baseline, and the description usefully compensates for the two undocumented params: wait (blocks for the report) and timeout_s (upper bound on the wait). It also clarifies the worker dependency (Codex vs OpenCode) that governs the worker param.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: it launches a worker agent (Codex/OpenCode depending on the worker), so the agent knows this spawns an autonomous job rather than running inline. It is clear despite the generic name 'run', but it never names how it differs from close siblings like run_many, continue, or handoff.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The only implied usage cue is 'con wait=true espera el reporte', which tells the agent how to block, not when this tool should be preferred over run_many or continue.

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