run_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates mutation ('build its outputs') but lacks details on whether it is synchronous/asynchronous, permission requirements, or side effects like overwriting outputs. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 single concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool has no output schema, yet the description does not hint at what the response might be (e.g., job ID or status). For a tool that triggers an execution, this is a significant gap. Sibling tools like get_job_details suggest post-run actions are needed, but the description offers no guidance.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), meeting the baseline. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; for example, 'build_mode' remains loosely defined. Hence a score of 3.

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 the verb 'run' and the resource 'recipe', and it mentions the purpose 'to build its outputs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recipe, delete_recipe, or test_recipe_dry_run. However, it could be slightly more precise about what 'run' entails (e.g., execution triggering).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_recipe_dry_run. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent receives no help in deciding between run_recipe and other execution-related tools.

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