race

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: tasks run simultaneously, first success returns its ref, remaining tasks are abandoned and containers killed. This provides essential behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with a clear summary line and bullet-list args. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise; overall efficient.

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 2-param tool with no enums, the description covers the race pattern, parallel execution, and abandonment. Output schema exists but is not shown; 'ref' is mentioned but could be clarified, but given sibling context it is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by referencing the task format from 'par' and explaining max_concurrency as controlling simultaneous agents. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool runs multiple approaches in parallel and returns the first to succeed, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'par' by highlighting the race condition and abandonment of remaining tasks.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for speculative execution or when multiple strategies might work. Implies not to use when all results are needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'par' for collecting all results, though the behavior difference is clear.

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