fabric_run_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the job runs synchronously/asynchronously, if it returns a job ID, or any failure modes. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters) without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It lacks details on valid jobType values, executionData format, response, and error handling, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 high (75%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds 'Optionally pass executionData,' clarifying optionality not explicit in the schema. This adds modest value, but not enough to exceed baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run an on-demand job for any item, by job type.' It identifies the action (run) and resource (job) and highlights the flexibility across item types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from specific sibling tools like fabric_run_notebook, limiting clarity.

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 guidance is given on when to use this generic tool versus the specific run tools (e.g., fabric_run_notebook). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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