run_action

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

The description adds the 'tier-gated' concept and the modes (DRY_RUN, approve, execute), which go beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain the gating mechanism, what each mode entails, or the nature of destructiveness beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 a single concise sentence (17 words) that front-loads the verb and key concept. While very brief, it avoids fluff. However, it could include structured information without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, destructive, no output schema, tier-gating), the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks details about how gating works, when to set dry_run, what approval_token is, and the specific adapters. It needs much more context to be usable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 complex parameters, the description fails to add any meaning to the parameters. It only mentions 'adapter' indirectly and does not explain host, host_type, action, approval_token, etc. This is a critical 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 starts with a clear verb 'Run' and specifies the resource 'tier-gated actuation via an adapter'. The parenthetical '(DRY_RUN, approve, execute)' further clarifies the modes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which are about scanning and fact queries.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or warning about destructive impacts, which is needed given the destructiveHint annotation.

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