Run the full demo

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds some context by outlining the four-beat structure, but it does not explain what these beats actually entail or what side effects (if any) occur, such as whether state changes or outputs are produced.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core idea ('four-beat walkthrough') and then lists the beats. It is concise, but the cryptic beat names add color rather than clarity, and the sentence could be more straightforward without losing brevity.

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 no parameters, a read-only hint, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it does not connect the demo to the surrounding workflow (e.g., whether it should be run after setup or before verify), and the abstract language leaves the tool's actual behavior under-specified for an agent.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none, and the 100% schema coverage leaves no ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as a 'four-beat walkthrough' on a 'deterministic simulated estate', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup, ingest, or verify. The title 'Run the full demo' reinforces the action, but the metaphorical phrasing ('the wall, the collapse, the refusal') is less direct than an explicit statement like 'runs the complete demo'.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the available siblings. The description implies it is for running a full demo walkthrough, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and title alone.

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