bernstein_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the burden. It describes the action as 'posting a task' and lists the return value, but it omits behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects (e.g., conflicts with existing runs). The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured docstring with clear Args and Returns sections. It is concise but informative, with each sentence adding value. It is not overly long, though it could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., avoid repeating parameter names in parentheses).

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 tool with 6 parameters (1 required, no enums, no nested objects) and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, all parameters, and return structure adequately. It does not specify output schema details beyond a JSON with task ID, title, and status, but that is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the parameter fields have descriptions. The description's Args section compensates fully by explaining all 6 parameters (goal, role, priority, scope, complexity, estimated_minutes), including default values and allowed values (e.g., role examples, priority scale). This adds substantial 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 'Start an orchestration run by posting a task to the Bernstein server', using a specific verb and resource. The tool name 'bernstein_run' aligns with this purpose, and sibling tools like bernstein_approve, bernstein_stop, and bernstein_create_subtask are distinct actions, making differentiation straightforward.

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 when to use this tool (to start a run) and lists parameters that guide usage, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools. However, the context of sibling names and the clear purpose make usage fairly obvious.

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