Run Template

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it warns that automated runs set a review_note and that callers must verify key figures, and it discloses the async fallback for timeout-bound clients. It says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or cost/side effects of template execution, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then parameter contract, then return fields, then cautions and the async escape hatch. Every block earns its place, though the return-field enumeration partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the return-value summary is redundant but harmless; the important additions (review_note caveat, timeout/async routing, input_json contract) are all present. Only minor gaps remain, such as template_id semantics and any authorization requirements.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for input_json: it explains the parameter is a JSON string conforming to the template's input contract and gives a worked example (company_name / report_path / report_type). template_id is left unexplained, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('执行指定工作流模板' – execute the specified workflow template) that is immediately distinguishable from the read-only siblings list_templates/get_template_info. It also hints at the async sibling, though without formally naming it as the alternative for a distinct use case.

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?

Explicitly names the condition that should route the agent elsewhere: long-running templates (multiple LLM calls) under clients with request timeouts should use run_template_async instead. That is a concrete when-to-use-other rule, though there is no inverse statement of when run_template is the right choice beyond the implication.

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