bernstein_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a write operation (posting a task) and returns a task ID, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether the operation is asynchronous. Adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with a clear summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and adds value; no padding.

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 the core purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks broader context such as when to use this tool versus bernstein_create_subtask or the approval flow. The output schema exists, so return details are partially covered, but usage context is missing.

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 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter's meaning, valid values, and defaults (e.g., priority: 1=critical, 2=normal, 3=nice-to-have). It adds significant value 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 explicitly states 'Start an orchestration run by posting a task', clearly identifying the action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like bernstein_approve, bernstein_stop, and bernstein_status which have different verbs.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (starting a run), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bernstein_create_subtask or prerequisites. No 'when not to use' is provided.

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