Run Slx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it creates a RunSession, polls until completion, and returns pass/fail status and issues found — a synchronous, side-effecting execution. It also warns that the default task_titles='*' matters because a literal resolved title yields empty passedTitles. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or failure/timeout behavior.

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 and well organized, but the warning about run_script is stated twice (the 'IMPORTANT' paragraph and the 'different from run_script' line), and the dangling 'Skill: runwhen-skill://...' fragment reads as an orphaned artifact rather than a complete sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the alternatives, the commit-vs-ad-hoc distinction, and the polling/completion behavior, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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 all four parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the task_titles='*' default nuance, which is already stated in the schema; it does not explain runtime_var_overrides behavior beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource ('Run an existing SLX's runbook tasks on the workspace runner') and immediately scopes it as executing a previously committed SLX rather than an ad-hoc script. It explicitly contrasts itself with run_script / run_script_and_wait and workspace_chat, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('health check, troubleshooting task, or automation that already exists in the workspace') plus when-not-to-use, naming the exact alternative tools for ad-hoc execution. The NOTE that workspace_chat cannot run tasks but can search/describe them closes the most likely misroute.

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