gh_run

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the description only adds that the action applies to the current solution. It does not disclose that running a Grasshopper solution recomputes the graph, may update geometry or baked data, or could be time-consuming. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little beyond them.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded with the action verb. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed: it avoids all useful elaboration, making it minimally adequate but not a model of concise clarity.

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 an execution-style tool, the description omits prerequisites such as having an active Grasshopper document, side effects of running a solution, and the role of the new_solution parameter. The output schema may describe return values, but the decision context and behavioral impact are not covered.

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?

The description never mentions the new_solution parameter or explains the difference between running the current solution and forcing a fresh one. The schema contains only a bare 'Force a fresh solution' description, so the tool description adds no compensating parameter semantics given the low schema coverage signal.

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 names a specific action ('Run') and a specific resource ('current solution'), and the title confirms the Grasshopper context. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from most sibling creation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from gh_run_template.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of gh_run_template, gh_reset, or Rhino run commands. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer the intended context from the name alone.

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