Brute Genius Launch

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses pre-dispatch balance and cost-ceiling re-checks, progress streaming via ctx.report_progress, and logging via ctx.info. However it omits key behavioral facts for an unannotated execution tool — whether the call is asynchronous/long-running, what happens if the ceiling check fails, what occurs on an already-running job, and whether it is safe to retry.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the pre-flight checks and progress reporting follow. Slight loss because the terse jargon ("enumerated space", "ctx.report_progress") reduces clarity per word.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. Still missing for a job-launching tool: the lifecycle relationship to plan/status/kill, the async nature, and failure behavior when the cost ceiling check rejects dispatch.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including that plan_id comes from brute_genius_plan and that chip/nodes override plan-time choices. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb phrase "Shard the enumerated space and score every combination" identifies the operation, but the terminology is domain jargon and never states plainly that this launches an execution job from a plan. Nothing distinguishes it from brute_genius_plan or brute_genius_status, so the agent must infer that this is the 'run it now' step.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition beyond the schema's plan_id, and no mention of the alternative/sibling actions (poll brute_genius_status, abort with brute_genius_kill, fetch with brute_genius_results). The agent gets no signal about when launching is appropriate versus checking an existing run.

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