yade_execute_task

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the async nature, background execution, and return of a task_id. It also instructs on lifecycle management via companion tools. However, it omits details like error handling, permission requirements, or potential side effects, leaving a minor gap.

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 the core purpose, then explains async behavior, lists companion tools, provides usage context, and names alternatives. Every sentence adds unique value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 covers the tool's behavior, usage context, and lifecycle management. Since an output schema exists (not shown but signaled), the description need not detail return values. It mentions the task_id return and companion tools, making it largely complete. Minor missing aspects like error conditions could be added.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema; it only restates that entry_script is a script path. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate, as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 submits a Python script for asynchronous execution and returns a task_id immediately. It explicitly differentiates from sibling yade_execute_code by specifying use cases (production simulation runs vs. quick queries), making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Use this for production simulation runs, long O.run() cycles, and any operation that may take minutes or longer.' It also tells when not to use it, directing agents to 'use yade_execute_code' for quick queries, and names the alternative directly.

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