run_sra_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It states the tool is asynchronous, lists return keys, and mentions possible exceptions. It does not detail side effects like starting a process or permission needs, but covers core behaviors.

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 with structured sections (Args, Returns, Raises). Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and error conditions comprehensively. No important behavioral aspect is missing.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains all three parameters: config_name (with example), timeout (with unit and default), and admin (though vague). It also describes the return dict, adding value beyond the schema.

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 'Run an SRA task asynchronously,' identifying the specific action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_all_config' by its unique purpose of executing rather than listing configurations.

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 includes Raises section explaining exceptions for a task already running or config issues, providing implicit guidance on when not to use. However, it lacks explicit contrast with the sibling tool 'list_all_config'.

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