run_synthesis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the leading reset_run step implies prior results are discarded, and it clarifies the return is ground-truth status from the run object rather than text parsing. It omits whether the call blocks for the full duration and what happens on synthesis failure.

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?

One compact sentence with a parenthetical pipeline that is front-loaded with the action. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the pipeline, and the return semantics (status from the run object). It could add expected duration or failure handling, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke it are present.

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 jobs and timeout are already documented with defaults and guidance, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing about these parameters (e.g., how jobs affects runtime or why timeout matters), so it does not exceed 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?

States a specific verb (Run synthesis) and resource (current project), then spells out the exact internal sequence reset_run -> launch_runs synth_1 -> wait_on_run, which no sibling tool does. This clearly separates it from run_implementation, run_simulation, and launch_simulation.

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?

'on the current project' establishes the precondition (a project must be open), giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., use run_implementation after synthesis), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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