Run Template Async

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers the essential trait: execution is asynchronous, control returns immediately with a task_id, and results must be retrieved by polling. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or any rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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 core async contract in the first clause, followed by the polling instruction and the scenario rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the async/polling model is well covered. However, with zero schema description coverage the description should at least sketch the shape of input_json; that omission leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither template_id nor the free-form input_json string (presumably a serialized inputs object) is explained, leaving the agent to guess the expected format of input_json.

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 ('异步执行指定模板') and immediately clarifies the differentiating behavior: it returns a task_id rather than the result. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling run_template (synchronous execution) without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 alternative ('用 get_task_status 轮询结果') and gives a concrete when-to-use scenario (client request timeouts where multi-LLM-call execution exceeds the limit). It does not explicitly state the inverse case ('use run_template for short/fast templates'), so the routing logic is clear but not fully spelled out.

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