wafle_agents_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a `run_id` and a synchronous run row with possible statuses (done, failed, awaiting_approval), which informs the agent about execution outcomes. It also hints at the need to poll via `wafle_agents_runs_get`, indicating the run is not necessarily final. However, it doesn't cover permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. No redundant information. The pointer to the polling tool is valuable.

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 there's no output schema, the description provides essential return information (run_id, statuses). It also instructs on the next step (polling). It doesn't detail the context parameter or possible errors, but for a dispatch action the core information is present. Sibling tools provide surrounding context.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it doesn't elaborate on how `slug` or `agent_slug` relate. It is minimally sufficient due to the high schema coverage.

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 'dispatch' and identifies the resource as 'a run for an agent'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like wafle_agents_runs_get (poll) and wafle_agents_runs_approve/reject. It also states what is returned.

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?

It states this is for 'manually' dispatching a run, implying it's the tool to initiate a run rather than inspect or approve. It explicitly directs users to `wafle_agents_runs_get` for polling, which serves as an alternative for monitoring. It doesn't enumerate when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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