Run TRHTR

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

Annotations indicate a mutation with possible side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds no further behavioral detail, such as that it creates a job, consumes credits, or modifies the collection. Missing context beyond what annotations already provide.

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 short sentence, which is concise but too terse; it could be more informative without losing brevity. It conveys the core purpose but leaves out important details.

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 has 11 parameters, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what TRHTR is, what the tool returns (e.g., a job ID), or how to monitor progress. An agent would likely need additional context.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter information, but the schema covers the semantics adequately, earning the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Run'), the resource ('TRHTR recognition'), and the context ('using a specific model in a collection'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like transkribus_recog_run_htr_citlab and transkribus_recog_run_ocr by specifying the TRHTR engine.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., model must be trained, collection must exist), and no explanation of complex parameters like pages, credits, or concurrency.

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