run_process

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does explain the execution model—instantiation, parameter assignment, view-scoped vs global execution—but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or that running arbitrary processes can modify images irreversibly. This is a meaningful gap for a generic process runner.

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, dense, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action, the parameter-assignment mechanism, the view/global execution distinction, and the tool's fallback role. Every component earns its place.

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 tool with three well-documented parameters, this is a viable definition. However, it is missing context about what happens on invalid constructor names, whether the operation is immediately applied and destructive, and any interaction with the many sibling measurement or process-specific tools. No output schema exists, so some return-value guidance could have helped.

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 adds marginal framing by saying parameters are 'JSON-valued' and execution is conditional on view_id, but most of this is already present in the schema property descriptions. It does not meaningfully deepen the agent's understanding of the parameters.

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 states a specific action sequence: instantiate a process by PJSR constructor name, assign JSON parameters, and execute on a view or globally. It explicitly labels itself as the 'generic fallback for processes with no dedicated tool,' which clearly differentiates it from the many specialized run_* siblings.

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 tells the agent that this tool is the generic fallback, implying dedicated tools should be preferred when they exist. It also explains the view_id condition: provide it to run on a view, omit to run globally. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating 'use run_scnr instead for SCNR,' but the guidance is clear enough.

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