typesafe_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the run records screenshots and OCR locally and sends text to Jev, a side effect. It also states the 'needs_host' return flow, and the requirement to keep the target window in foreground. It mentions using only the user-authorized goal, which is a safety boundary. It lacks details on whether actions are reversible or if any destructive operations could occur, but the given transparency is above average.

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 dense paragraph of five sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes key workflow steps, but it lacks bullet points or clear separation of concerns. Some information, like 'Jev chooses operations and targets', could be trimmed or clarified. It is not excessively long, but it could be more scannable.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains the high-level workflow (run, receive needs_host, respond) and mentions data recording, but it does not document parameter semantics, expected return values beyond needs_host, error conditions, or timeouts. The agent would need to infer too much from parameter names and defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly references the 'goal' parameter ('Use only the user-authorized goal'), but provides no explanation of act, delay, steps, windowTitle, or minConfidence. The agent is left to infer their meanings from names and defaults, which is insufficient for a tool with six parameters.

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 it runs a specific Windows port of a computer-use tool, with a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the needs_host handoff to typesafe_respond, making its purpose unambiguous. However, the phrase 'Jev chooses operations and targets' is slightly vague, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like typesafe_wait or typesafe_status.

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 it is used to initiate a task and explicitly instructs to reply with typesafe_respond when needs_host is returned. It also gives a safety directive ('Use only the user-authorized goal') and a behavior constraint (keep window foreground). However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like checking typesafe_status first.

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