neon3_app_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions a fixed executable profile and bounded timeout, but does not disclose side effects of executing arbitrary code, timeout behavior, or any safety guarantees. This is a significant gap for a tool that runs user-provided code.

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 sentence with no waste, which is good for conciseness, but it omits essential information needed for correct invocation. The lack of structure or additional context makes it less useful than it could be.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'generated' means, what the fixed executable profile entails, how to specify code, or the meaning of the bounded timeout. An agent would need to infer most call details.

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%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It does not mention cwd, args, entry, runtime, or timeout_ms semantics. The schema's enum for runtime is the only guidance, leaving the agent to guess parameter intent.

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 tool runs a generated Python or Node app with a fixed executable profile and bounded timeout. The verb 'Run' and the resource 'app' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like neon3_app_init (initialization) and neon3_app_test (testing) by focusing on the execution step.

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 implies usage for executing an app but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like neon3_app_test or neon3_app_init. The description gives no when-to-use guidance beyond the underlying action, so an agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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