run_upscaling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'passthrough' plus the shell-style splitting of string args do disclose meaningful behavior. However, it does not cover failure behavior, exit codes, how stdout/stderr are handled, or whether the target binary must already exist in PATH — notable gaps for an execution tool.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the argument-format note directly follows it, addressing a real ambiguity in the schema. Every sentence 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?

The description is minimally viable for a passthrough runner: the output schema covers return values, and the args/tool semantics are addressed. But the 'etc.' in 'upscale_perm, upscale_relperm, etc.' leaves the set of valid tool values ambiguous, and there is no example invocation or note about environment prerequisites, so an agent may stumble on the first call.

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 0%, but the description compensates meaningfully: it clarifies that args can be a JSON array (each element a positional argument) or a plain string split shell-style, adding semantics the schema's anyOf doesn't convey. It also gives concrete examples for the tool parameter (upscale_perm, upscale_relperm). Only cwd semantics are left to inference, which is largely self-evident.

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 verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('an opm-upscaling binary'), naming concrete examples like upscale_perm and upscale_relperm. The term 'passthrough' clarifies the execution model. It doesn't explicitly name sibling upscaling_status, but the run-vs-status distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 exists on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of upscaling_status (a closely related sibling), no prerequisites such as requiring a WSL-converted path (despite to_wsl_path/to_windows_path siblings), and no exclusions or conditions. The intended context must be inferred entirely.

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