begin_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses statelessness, the lack of an implicit current run, the need to pass handles, idempotent retry behavior, and rejection of conflicting payloads. This is substantial coverage of the tool's non-obvious behavior.

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 only four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds critical behavioral information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a run-initiation tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: return of handles, statelessness, and idempotency. It does not explicitly outline a full workflow, but the reference to 'later event, read, and completion calls' provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 18 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but schema already describes each parameter in detail, so no penalty is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Start one explicit, stateless run and return server-minted run/work-item IDs.' This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_run or record_run_event, which operate on an already-started run.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining that the bridge has no implicit current run and that callers must pass returned handles to later event, read, and completion calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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