bernstein_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers excellently. It discloses async (returns when queued, not finished), side effects (writes files, spawns agent processes, makes network requests), and the returned poll_after_ms. This is far beyond minimal.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, async warning, follow-up, subtask usage, and host effects. It is well-structured and not bloated.

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 complex orchestration tool with side effects, the description covers all critical aspects: queuing model, duplicate-run risk, polling strategy, subtask support, and host-level consequences. Output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains parent_task_id ('pass to create the run as a subtask'). The required 'goal' and others like role, scope, priority, complexity, estimated_minutes are left unexplained, relying solely on naming and enums.

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 opens with 'Start an orchestration run', a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like bernstein_run_status (which monitors) and bernstein_cancel by emphasizing the queuing behavior and follow-up steps.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and alternatives: tells users not to re-issue while waiting (starts a second run), instructs to follow with bernstein_run_status after waiting poll_after_ms, and mentions parent_task_id for subtasks. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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