run_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals one conditional behavior, that review=true with nonempty acceptance adds a fresh review, but omits execution semantics, timeout behavior, trust requirements, side effects, and what 'Execute' actually mutates.

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 single sentence has no filler, but it is under-specified for a nine-parameter execution tool and reads like a fragment. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no annotations, nine parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It omits usage context, parameter meanings, side effects, and safety constraints; the output schema does not offset those gaps.

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 9 parameters. The description references review and acceptance only in one conditional and says nothing about job_id, task, cwd, model, effort, timeout_sec, or project_root, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Execute' but never names the resource or what is being executed. It does not distinguish run_job from siblings such as execute_task, run_jobs, or review_task, leaving the object of the verb to be inferred from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use run_job versus execute_task, review_task, continue_task, or run_jobs. The review/acceptance conditional describes a behavior, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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