flow_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at "bounded" execution and "real verification", but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, runtime behavior, local file access, or what "bounded" actually constrains.

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 definition is a single terse phrase with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though it reads as a fragment rather than a front-loaded action statement with scope.

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 tool that likely triggers a multi-role local workflow, the description omits execution semantics, task expectations, side effects, and return behavior. No annotations or output schema compensate for those gaps.

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?

There is one required parameter, task, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent gets no guidance on task format, scope, examples, or constraints.

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 phrase names a "bounded local planner/coder/reviewer run" and suggests verification, but it does not state a concrete action plus resource, such as starting a multi-agent planning/coding/review workflow, or what the tool returns. It partially suggests execution versus the flow_status and flow_check siblings, but the purpose remains vague.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention when to run this versus flow_status or flow_check, so an agent cannot infer the right selection from the text.

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