run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses write isolation (scratch-only writes), that artifact file bodies are NEVER returned, and the return payload shape (final message + manifest with path/bytes/sha256). It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or concurrency behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then returns, then permissions, then review workflow — a logical order. Every clause earns its place, though the final imperative sentence lengthens it slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does precisely (final message plus manifest fields, bodies excluded). Combined with the write-isolation rules, an agent has everything needed to invoke and consume the result correctly.

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%, so every parameter (files, model, prompt, readDirs, timeoutMs, maxBudgetUsd) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the read/write boundary and the self-contained prompt requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ('Run one Claude Code task (`claude -p`)') plus the execution context ('in an isolated scratch directory'). There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, and an agent immediately knows what this tool produces.

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 gives clear context for use: Claude can read named directories but writes only in scratch, and the caller should read/review artifacts before copying them into the workspace. It doesn't state explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, but none exist here, so the guidance is solid.

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