Start Cortical Tiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the job is 'launched'. It does not disclose that this is a long-running/async job, whether a job id is returned, what overwrite does to existing outputs, or any resource/parallelism behavior implied by njobs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition; every word carries information. It is terse rather than padded, so the shortfall is under-specification captured in other dimensions, not verbosity.

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 10-parameter pipeline-stage launcher with zero annotation coverage, the description omits prerequisites, stage sequencing, and parameter meaning. The existence of an output schema excuses it from documenting return values, but little else is covered.

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?

There are 10 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. 'Extract 28 sulcal region crops' faintly gestures at the regions parameter but leaves input_dir, output_dir, path_to_graph, path_sk_with_hull, masks, njobs, overwrite, sk_qc_path, and labelling_session entirely undefined.

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 ('Launch'), a stage ('Stage 2'), and a concrete resource ('28 sulcal region crops with cortical_tiles'), so the agent knows it kicks off a tile-extraction stage rather than a generic pipeline run. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the other start_* siblings beyond the 'Stage 2' label.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that Stage 1 must have produced path_to_graph / path_sk_with_hull), and no mention of alternatives such as start_pipeline or start_morphologist. The agent must infer ordering entirely from the stage number.

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