run_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: unknown params are refused by name (rather than silently ignored), and noGUIMessages is auto-set to true for a named list of processes so confirmations route to the Process Console. It omits error/return behavior and whether execution is destructive or permissions-gated, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, all front-loaded with the core action and mode switch before the two edge-case rules. Every sentence earns its place; it is slightly long but no filler is present.

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 generic process runner with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers execution mode, param handling, and GUI-message side effects well. What it does not cover is what the tool returns or how failures are surfaced, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the validation contract for params keys (refused by name) and the override interplay between params and the default noGUIMessages=true. That is genuine added semantics over the field-level docs.

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 gives a precise verb set (instantiate, assign, execute), names the resource (a PixInsight process by PJSR constructor name), and clearly distinguishes itself from dedicated siblings with 'Generic fallback for processes with no dedicated tool.' An agent can tell it apart from run_scnr, run_abe, or run_pjsr without opening a schema.

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?

It states the selection condition clearly: use this when there is no dedicated tool, otherwise use the specialized siblings. The view_id-omitted-vs-present distinction also guides invocation mode. It stops short of explicitly enumerating 'when not to use' beyond the fallback framing, so not a full 5.

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