Dsh 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 delivers extensively: it discloses auto-start behavior, default cwd session reuse, synchronous pending semantics, progress notification conditions and meaning, approval waiting behavior in web transport, and timeout handling without resubmission. This is exemplary transparency.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and every sentence adds important behavioral context, from synchronous semantics to progress notifications and approval handling. It is somewhat long, but the density of critical guidance justifies the length; no sentence feels wasted.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all operational aspects an agent needs: sync behavior, polling prohibition, progress notification semantics, approval flow, timeout consequences, and alternative routing. The only minor gap is the exact return payload shape, but '返回最终答复' is sufficient for a task-execution tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter-related context, such as '默认复用当前 cwd 的会话', which largely restates the existing cwd schema description. It does not materially enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '把任务交给 DeepSeek Harness 执行并返回最终答复' – clearly stating it submits a task to DeepSeek Harness and returns the final answer. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with dsh_submit + dsh_job for long-running 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('这是一个同步的 tools/call'), what not to do ('不要轮询、不要并发重复提交'), and when to prefer an alternative ('较长或预计耗时不确定的任务优先用 dsh_submit + dsh_job'). This provides clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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