agy_start_with_expected_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the run blocks until expected_file is non-empty. It omits blocking/return semantics, what happens on timeout or missing file, side effects of starting a run, and the safety-relevant default of dangerously_skip_permissions=true. For a launch-type tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is genuinely concise, though borderline over-terse given how much behavioral and parameter information it withholds.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is inadequate. It fails to explain blocking semantics, the timeout default, the permission-skipping default, or parameter purposes. The output schema covers return values, but the rest of the calling context is missing.

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, but it only clarifies expected_file's role (the run waits for it). The other eight parameters — including the safety-critical dangerously_skip_permissions, timeout_seconds, sandbox, and model — are left unexplained by both schema and description.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Start) and resource (task Run), and states the defining gating condition — the run 'cannot complete until expected_file is non-empty.' This conveys the tool's distinctive behavior relative to generic siblings like agy_run_start, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include agy_run_start (the generic start), agy_run_wait, and agy_run_cancel, but no when/when-not conditions or alternative routing is provided. Usage is only implied by the name and the file-gating condition.

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