opentrons_control_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the control actions but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether stop is irreversible), prerequisites beyond 'running', error handling for non-running runs, or response semantics. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that lists all supported actions and targets the correct resource. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or 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 low complexity (2 parameters, enums, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, it lacks details on what happens after each action (e.g., pause vs resume semantics) and possible error conditions, which would make it more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% as both runId and action have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only contextualizing runId as referring to a 'running' Run. It does not elaborate on the enum values beyond what the schema already provides.

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 issues control actions (play, pause, stop, resume) for an existing running Run. The verb '発行する' specifies the operation and the resource is explicitly '実行中の Run', differentiating it from sibling tools like upload_and_run, which likely starts a new run.

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 controlling an already running Run but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_and_run or execute_command. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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