run_inference

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'trigger' but does not disclose whether the run is asynchronous, how long it takes, or what side effects occur. No mention of permissions, cost, or limits.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could include more critical information without becoming verbose, so borderline 4.

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 complexity of the tool (triggering an inference run) and the presence of an output schema, the description omits crucial details like return value, async behavior, and usage context. It is not complete enough for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The description mentions 'on a branch' but does not clarify what branch_id represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, existence). The parameter lacks meaningful explanation beyond the schema.

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 triggers a JEPA inference run on a branch to discover attack paths. It uses a specific verb ('Trigger'), identifies the resource ('JEPA inference run'), and describes the outcome ('discover attack paths'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_inference_runs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_inference_schedule or list_inference_runs. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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