run_execute

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals that execution can be synchronous or in the background, but omits side effects (e.g., running code, producing outputs), resource consumption, error conditions, or whether it is a read-only or mutating operation. The agent cannot anticipate the impact of executing a run.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the core action and the two execution modes. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected workflow (e.g., that run_prepare must precede it), the purpose of optional parameters, or any caveats. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the overall context remains incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'background' via 'synchronously or in the background' and 'run_id' via 'one prepared run', but provides no meaning for 'project_path' or 'timeout_seconds'. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('execute') and a specific resource ('one prepared run'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_prepare (prepares a run), run_status (checks status), and run_control (controls a run). It also mentions the two modes (synchronous or background), which adds functional clarity.

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?

The description implies the tool is used after a run has been prepared, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention prerequisites. There is no exclusionary guidance (e.g., 'use run_status to check before executing') or advice on when to choose synchronous vs background execution. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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