flowpass_run

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

Annotations only flag non-readonly/non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it enumerates what is returned (journey readiness, step verdicts, hat outputs, exclusions) and discloses that a stored report is produced, plus the plan-only receipt fallback. That fallback rule is genuinely useful and not derivable from structured fields.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and input modes before the return values and the caveat. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description competently summarizes inputs and outputs, including the degraded mode. It omits what a stored report location/lifecycle looks like and how it differs from flowpass_report, a minor gap given the rich schema.

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 92%, so the schema already explains url, pack, fixture, pack_id, profile, target_sha, etc. The description only reinforces that fixture and pack are the two entry modes, adding little beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb (Run) and resource (FlowPass) with two supported input modes (public fixture or registered pack). It does not name any sibling such as flowpass_status or flowpass_register_pack, so an agent must infer which flowpass_* tool to pick, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives real selection context: use it with a fixture or a registered pack, and it explains the fallback behavior when fixture proof is absent. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating prerequisites (e.g. that a pack must be registered first via flowpass_register_pack).

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