run_task

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Executa' (executes), but does not state whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, error handling, side effects, or return format. The presence of async sibling tools suggests this may be synchronous, but it's not explicit.

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 very short, but includes an unnecessary version label ('v4.0') at the start. It could be more concise by removing the version and leading with the core function. However, it is not overly verbose.

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 of a multi-task executor with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values, sync/async behavior, error states, and how the 'input' parameter interacts with each task. The sibling tools provide context but the description itself does not.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the task_id values already defined in the schema enum, adding no new meaning. The 'input' parameter is described only generically in the schema, and the description does not clarify its structure or provide examples.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool executes a specific task from a list of tasks, which is accurate. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that are individual task tools or async versions, leaving ambiguity about when to use this generic runner.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools that perform specific tasks (e.g., 'analyze', 'generate_test_suite'). It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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