run_synthesis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the key async behavior and the polling mechanism, but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, outputs, or failure behavior. Some useful context, but not enough to fully guide an agent.

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 a single, compact sentence with two clear directives: launch asynchronously and poll with get_run_progress. Every word adds value and no filler is present.

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 output schema helps with return values, but the description lacks key operational context such as prerequisite state, parameter meaning, side effects, or how it differs from other run/synthesis-related tools. For an unattended agent, this is incomplete.

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% and neither parameter (run_name, timeout_s) is explained in the description. With no schema descriptions and no parameter details in the description, an agent cannot determine semantics or valid values for these fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Launch synthesis asynchronously.' It clearly identifies the operation (synthesis launch) and execution mode (async), and references the sibling get_run_progress for follow-up, distinguishing it from other run tools.

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 gives a clear workflow hint: launch synthesis then poll with get_run_progress. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like run_implementation or run_behavioral_simulation, but the name and async note sufficiently cue when to use it.

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