run_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains that clients declaring the tasks protocol receive a Task handle immediately, while older clients block and get the ordinary result, and that client_request_id is stable for retries. This adds nontrivial behavioral context, though it does not cover potential side effects like permissions or lifecycle details.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear introduction and practical guidance. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then gives usage constraints. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability, though that is minor.

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 an output schema, the tool is complex with 14 parameters and zero schema descriptions. The description focuses on compatibility details and retry semantics but leaves out essential context about how the task is created, what the command array represents, how to configure environment, resources, etc. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct arguments.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions client_request_id (explaining its role in retries) and implicitly references command, but provides no semantics for the other 12 parameters (cwd, env, host, queue, etc.). For a 14-parameter tool, this is inadequate — agents will not know what most parameters mean or how to set them.

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 explicitly states it is a 'MCP Tasks compatibility entry point for explicitly creating a Task handle', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Do not choose this for ordinary command execution: use run' and 'Do not choose it for generic asynchronous submission or fan-out: use submit_job', making its purpose clear and unique.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it should be used for Task handle creation, not for ordinary execution (use run) or async submission (use submit_job). It also gives specific guidance on retrying with the same client_request_id and identical arguments, which is actionable for the agent.

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