run_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether the run is synchronous or async, whether it mutates state permanently, what errors occur on a non-queued job, or whether re-running is idempotent. Only 'queued job' hints at a precondition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. The only cost is that the internal adapter name is opaque jargon that doesn't help an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and below-half parameter coverage, this one sentence is inadequate. An agent lacks the information needed to know when the call is safe, what it returns, or what the two optional params do.

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 coverage is only 33%: job_id and job_dir have no schema descriptions at all. The description's mention of the SHADOW_PIPELINE_FACTORY adapter loosely maps to the 'factory' override parameter but explains nothing about job_dir or the format of job_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Run a queued job') and names the adapter it executes through. It distinguishes itself implicitly from job_status (query) and submit_generation (enqueue), but never explicitly states how it differs from those siblings.

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 implies the job must already be queued but gives no guidance on when to call it versus submit_generation or job_status, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens if the job was never queued or was already run.

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