spatial_run_task

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

The description includes the note '[changes spatial-service]', which discloses that the tool has side effects on the spatial service, consistent with readOnlyHint: false. It does not contradict the annotations. However, beyond that note, it does not elaborate on what changes occur or whether they are reversible. Given that annotations already indicate it is not read-only, the description adds only minimal behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then provides examples and a reference to spatial_capabilities. It is concise and avoids redundant wording. However, the list of examples is somewhat lengthy and could be trimmed without losing meaning, so it is not a perfect 5 but remains efficient.

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?

The tool runs tasks and has no output schema, so the description should ideally mention what happens after execution (e.g., how to check status via spatial_task_status) and clarify the dryRun/confirm flow. While the schema covers the dryRun/confirm mechanics, the description does not mention the task lifecycle or the need to follow up with status checks. It also does not explain that the tool might return a task ID. Given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete in this regard, earning a 3.

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?

The schema has descriptions for dryRun and confirm (50% coverage), but name and input lack descriptions. The description partially compensates by telling agents to see spatial_capabilities for names and inputs, which is a useful pointer. However, it does not explain the structure or purpose of the 'input' parameter beyond that, nor does it elaborate on the semantics of name beyond the examples. Since schema covers half the parameters and the description adds a pointer, a 3 is fair.

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's purpose: it runs a task via /tasks/create, and gives specific examples of user analyses (AreaReport, AooEoo, PointsToGrid) and admin maintenance processes (Thumbnails, TabulationCreate, etc.). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like spatial_task_status or spatial_cancel_task, which handle other aspects of task lifecycle. The verb 'Run' and resource 'task' are explicit, so an agent can easily identify what this tool does.

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 provides context by distinguishing between user analysis tasks and admin maintenance processes, and explicitly points to spatial_capabilities for valid names and inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spatial_rerun_task or spatial_cancel_task, or when not to use it. The pointer to spatial_capabilities is helpful but the guidance on alternatives is implicit rather than explicit.

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