run

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 key behaviors: every command is a durable Job from launch, inline-timeout commands return a bound result, longer or queued work returns a detached job handle without cancellation, and the queue defaults to an operator-configured value. These details go beyond what the schema or annotations provide and are genuinely valuable.

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 a crisp purpose sentence, followed by a compact paragraph on execution behavior and a clear list of alternative-tool guidance. Every sentence adds value, and no unnecessary fluff is present. Slightly long given the 15 parameters remain undocumented, but the text itself is efficient.

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?

The description fully addresses the execution model, job lifecycle, and selection logic. However, with a high parameter count and zero schema description coverage, it leaves the user under-specified for most configuration options (e.g., env, host, backend, slurm_options, capture_logs). Completing all required and optional parameters would require external knowledge not provided here.

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% across all 15 parameters, and the description compensates for only two of them (inline_timeout_seconds and queue). Parameters like cwd, env, host, backend, capture_logs, slurm_options, timeout_seconds, and stall_timeout_seconds remain entirely unexplained. The description fails to provide anywhere near enough guidance for a tool with this many settings.

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 tool's verb+resource: 'starting one non-interactive command of uncertain duration.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly describing when this tool is the default, and contrasts it with submit_job and run_job. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 says when to use (one non-interactive command, uncertain duration) and when not to use: fire-and-forget/batch fan-out (use submit_job), MCP Tasks handle required (use run_job), resume existing job (wait_for/inspect). It even gives guidance for what to do with a detached handle: keep job_id and call wait_for_job once. This leaves little ambiguity about tool selection.

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