Run Maestro flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'delegates to the maestro CLI,' which is a useful implementation detail, but it does not disclose side effects (running flows may mutate app state), device requirements, or failure modes. This leaves the agent underinformed about behavioral consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has no filler. Every phrase adds functional value.

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 covers input modes and tag behavior, and the schema covers device_id, but there is no mention of return values, execution duration, or conditions under which the flow might fail. The tool's dependence on a device is not clarified, and with no output schema, the agent lacks a complete picture. Still, the basic usage is covered, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 schema covers 71% of parameters, and the description adds critical constraints not present in the schema: the mutual exclusivity of yaml/files/dir, the scoping of tags to dir, and the role of env vars. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function as 'Run a Maestro flow' and notes it delegates to the maestro CLI. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are individual UI actions or reporting tools.

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 explicit instructions on input selection: 'Provide exactly one of: yaml (inline), files (paths), or dir' and notes that include_tags/exclude_tags apply to dir. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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