oc_run_start

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it returns '{run_id,status,pathless metadata}', which is useful but does not disclose side effects like whether multiple starts are allowed or if prior runs affect it. Minimal additional value beyond annotations.

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 sentence plus a return format note, making it very concise. It contains no unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured to list the return fields. Still efficient for its length.

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 starts a run and has a complex nested 'budget' parameter, the description lacks details on when to set budgets or how they interact with run behavior. No output schema exists, so the return format note helps, but missing context about run lifecycle among siblings (e.g., relationship to oc_run_finish) reduces completeness.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'budget' object's impact or providing examples. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 action: 'Start an opt-in OpenChrome run ledger'. It specifies the verb 'Start' and the resource 'OpenChrome run ledger', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like oc_run_finish and oc_run_status that perform other run lifecycle operations.

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 implies usage (when needing to start a run) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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