agent_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints that local code execution occurs, but says nothing about side effects, sandboxing, permissions, whether the run is reversible, or what happens on failure — critical omissions for a tool that executes skills.

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?

One tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action. It is under-specified rather than bloated, which this dimension should not penalize heavily.

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 an action-executing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin to let an agent call it confidently or predict results.

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% and the single 'task' parameter is not described at all in the description. The agent gets no hint about format, granularity, or expected content of the task string.

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 concrete verb ('Run') and describes a two-stage pipeline: JEV skill selection followed by local Skill Executor execution. It is more than a tautology, but the jargon ('JEV', 'Skill Executor') is unexplained and it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'controlled_agent_run'.

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 indication of when to use this versus 'controlled_agent_run', 'jev_decide', or 'list_skills'. The presence of a near-twin sibling makes the absence of any routing/exclusion guidance a real gap.

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