task_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses deterministic execution of earlier rungs, the reification into Python code, and detailed timeout behavior including process isolation and kill semantics. However, it does not mention potential side effects or persistence, which remains ambiguous.

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 well-structured with a concise overview, Args, and Returns sections. It front-loads the core purpose and uses efficient language. The jargon-heavy opening paragraph is a minor readability cost, but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 description covers the main workflow, timeout behavior, and key outputs, but leaves gaps: the structure of the DTS spec is delegated to task_plan, the 'phases' return field is unexplained, and error handling for non-timeout failures is not addressed. An output schema exists, which may cover return details, but the core spec ambiguity remains.

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 thoroughly explains timeout_s, including its behavior and return value on timeout. However, spec is only described as 'A DTS dict (see task_plan)' with no structural detail, leaving the main parameter under-specified without cross-referencing another tool.

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 that the tool runs the DTS through the reification ladder, explaining the concept, symbol, derivation, and algorithm rungs. This distinguishes it from sibling derivation_* tools which handle individual steps, though the jargon 'DTS' and 'reification ladder' may be somewhat opaque without prior context.

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 this is the full-pipeline runner and references task_plan for creating the spec, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is primarily contextual rather than directive.

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