run_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does disclose determinism, no AI, report generation, and pass/fail return. However, it does not mention the flow's side effects on the device, prerequisites like a connected/booted device, or error/failure behavior, so coverage is partial.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core purpose, then the output, then the reference to flow_reference. No redundant phrases or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a clear sibling validate_flow, yet the description omits the validation/execution workflow and failure behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but not complete for safe, correct end-to-end use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating 'YAML flow' and 'device.' Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the semantic heavy lifting.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Run a validated YAML test flow on a device,' immediately distinguishing execution from sibling validation/reference tools. The added 'deterministic, no AI' and the output statement (HTML report, pass/fail summary) make the tool's job unambiguous.

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 tells the agent to call flow_reference for YAML grammar, which is useful routing for one sibling. It does not explicitly address when to use run_flow versus validate_flow or state exclusions/prerequisites, leaving much of the decision to inference.

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