controlled_agent_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that actions are routed through policy, permits, and a sandbox, which implies gating and possible blocking of actions - genuine behavioral context beyond the name. But it says nothing about what happens when a permit is denied, whether approval (approve_action) is required, state changes, or failure modes.

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; the pipeline order (policy, JEV, permits, sandbox) is informative. It is slightly jargon-dense with no expansion of JEV, but structurally 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?

For a two-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits return behavior, what a controlled run produces, how blocking/permit denial is surfaced, and how it chains with jev_decide or approve_action.

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% for both parameters, and the description offers no explanation of 'task' or 'max_steps'. 'Proposed local actions' loosely hints at the task input, but max_steps (default 5) is entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a verb ('Run') with a resource ('proposed local actions') and names the machinery involved (policy, JEV, permits, sandbox), so the general intent is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling agent_run, and 'JEV' is unexplained jargon even though jev_decide exists as a sibling. Purpose is vague rather than specific.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus agent_run, jev_decide, or approve_action, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The reader can only guess that this is the 'controlled' counterpart to agent_run from the name itself.

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