agy_run_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'stale-write guards' but does not explain what they do when triggered (e.g., error handling, idempotency). No mention of side effects or prerequisites like authentication.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and key feature. No wasted words.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage in the description. The description omits details about parameter types, constraints, and the stale-write guard mechanism, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.

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 only mentions the core action and 'stale-write guards' vaguely. Parameters like expected_event_key and expected_transcript_step are not explained, leaving ambiguity about their purpose and format.

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 ('Send input'), the target resource ('a live foreground Run'), and a specific feature ('optional stale-write guards'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like agy_run_cancel or agy_run_observe by focusing on input delivery.

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 phrase 'live foreground Run' implies it should be used only when a run is active, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agy_run_start or agy_run_result. The description lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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