run_sweep

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) and provide no safety profile. The description discloses that it runs asynchronously and returns a job_id immediately, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention what happens on failure, or that it may consume resources, but given the annotations are sparse, the description adds some value but could be more explicit about side effects.

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, concise sentence that packs in key details: 'previously configured', 'asynchronously', 'return a job_id immediately'. No fluff, front-loaded with the action, and completely efficient.

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 complexity is low (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it does, the async nature, and the return. It could mention that it returns a job_id for tracking, but it already does. It doesn't explain how to use the job_id, but that's likely covered by other tools like check_job. Overall, it's reasonably complete for a simple tool.

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% for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions 'previously configured' which reinforces the config_id parameter's role, but doesn't add extra detail about max_parallel. With full schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 executes a previously configured parameter sweep and returns a job_id asynchronously. It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (parameter sweep), and it distinguishes from siblings like run_montecarlo by focusing on 'parameter sweep' rather than Monte Carlo. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative, but the purpose is clear.

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?

The description implies usage context: 'previously configured' and 'config_id' from configure_sweep or configure_montecarlo. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of requiring a config_id implies it should be used after configuration. Sibling tools like run_montecarlo exist, but no contrast is provided.

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