rundeck_run_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool executes a job and returns an execution ID, but fails to mention whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, required permissions, side effects, or error behavior.

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 redundant phrases. It efficiently communicates the main action and key output, earning its place without waste.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format of the execution ID, how to use it with monitoring tools, or how to handle errors. For a complex execution tool, this is insufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists some parameters (arguments, node filter, log level) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It omits details for 'asUser' and 'runAtTime', though the schema provides descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Execute' and resource 'job', clearly indicating the action and object. Among sibling tools like rundeck_abort_execution and rundeck_retry_job, this tool is uniquely identified as the primary run action, making its purpose distinct.

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 implies usage for running a job, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rundeck_retry_job or rundeck_enable_job_execution. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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