Run Model Sweep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds no behavioral context at all: no mention of cost, runtime, whether runs are cached, or what state is written. A non-idempotent, open-world execution tool needs far more disclosure than a four-word sentence.

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?

Short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single fragment carries almost no information and there is no front-loaded statement of purpose.

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 four-parameter, non-idempotent execution tool with no output schema, the description is completely inadequate; an agent has no way to know what the sweep produces or how results are returned.

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 only 25% (only workspace_root is documented). The description implies 'models' is an iterable of model names but never states the format (comma-separated? semicolon? list?), and says nothing about 'reference' or 'schematic_path', leaving the three required parameters undocumented in both places.

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 'Run once per model name' is nearly a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of what is being run or against what. It hints at an iteration semantic over the 'models' argument, but an agent cannot tell what operation is executed or what it produces.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many simulation siblings (run_simulation, run_param_sweep, run_value_sweep, run_monte_carlo, run_worst_case). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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