submit_async_task

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the operation is 'long-running' and runs 'in the background'. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description complements them without contradiction.

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 very concise, consisting of one sentence. It front-loads the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key constraints) without adding much length.

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 complexity of async task submission, the description is insufficient. It does not mention that the tool returns an async task ID, how to monitor progress (e.g., via 'get_async_task'), or details about allowed operations. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for missing behavioral and operational 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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters. The schema lists 'operation', 'params', and 'instance' but lacks explanation of allowed values or structure. The description must compensate but does not, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 action ('run'), the resource ('allowlisted long-running read operation'), and the mode ('in the background'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_async_task' or 'cancel_async_task' by specifying that it is for submitting new 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?

The description implies usage for long-running read operations, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'execute_method' for synchronous calls). The term 'allowlisted' hints at constraints but does not fully clarify when to choose this tool over others.

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