qllm_claude_code_run

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world. The description adds 'non-interactive' and details about stdin, stdout/stderr, but does not elaborate on potential side effects despite openWorldHint being true.

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: two sentences with a parameter list. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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's complexity (many parameters, output schema, annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, input, and output. It does not detail every parameter but the schema compensates. Suitable for a tool with rich structured metadata.

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 description groups parameters (Prompt, cwd, model/effort, etc.) and notes that prompt is passed via stdin, adding context beyond the schema. However, the schema already contains descriptions for most parameters, so the added value is moderate.

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 runs a non-interactive Claude Code CLI task, distinguishing it from sibling tools like qllm_chat or qllm_claude_code_sessions. The verb 'run' and resource 'Claude Code CLI' are specific.

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 usage for non-interactive code tasks but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like qllm_chat or qllm_heavy_discuss. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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