run_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it says it polls until completion or error, returns final run status with error details, and causes automatic app refresh. It does not mention timeout behavior or potential side effects of executing code, but core behavior is clear.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the usage scenario and expected outcome. Every sentence earns its place with no informational redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description clearly conveys purpose and outcome, and the output schema likely covers return values. However, it lacks parameter explanations, timeout behavior, and explicit guidance on when to use sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 description provides no parameter details. It does not explain inputs, timeout_seconds, or project_id beyond the generic phrase 'Run a Hex project.' The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Run a Hex project'), states the polling behavior, and positions itself as 'the primary tool for pushing notebook changes to the app view,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_project and get_run_status.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call after updating cells and the app will automatically reflect new results. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like run_project or get_run_status, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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