run_qoder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses non-blocking async execution, automatic task tracking, retry behavior on 429/rate-limit/timeout with exponential backoff and a default of 2 retries, resume semantics via -r/session_id, and that --permission-mode auto writes files to disk. Missing only auth/credential requirements and how the async result is retrieved.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and async behavior, but the middle is a crammed run-on of CLI flags (-p -o json, -r/--resume, --permission-mode auto) and ecosystem marketing. Some fragments earn their place, others read as unstructured notes.

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 13-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description covers execution model and retry/resume behavior but omits how the async task result is surfaced, what the JSON output contains, and semantics for roughly half the parameters. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps.

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 31% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies session_id, auto, and max_retries defaults, but leaves model, task_id, workdir, timeout_sec, retry_base_ms, retry_max_ms, capture_trace, plan_mode, and fork_on_fail unexplained in the description (several only documented in 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+resource ('Async call Qoder CLI to run a task') and adds distinguishing ecosystem detail (Alibaba Qwen, /review, /goal long-task mode) that separates it from run_codex/run_claude/run_qwen. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling run_qoder_cn, which is the one tool most likely to be confused with it.

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 only implied through capability mentions (Chinese-optimized engineering, code review, /goal long-task mode). There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing against run_qwen, run_codex, run_claude, or run_qoder_cn, which is the highest-value guidance for this crowded sibling set.

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