run_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals blocking up to 120s, the error behavior for a missing agent_id, and side effects ('task row + spend'), which is unusually transparent for a tool definition.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: purpose, timeout/error behavior, prerequisite, alternative tool, and side effects. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema exists, return value details are unnecessary. The description covers purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, timeout, failure mode, and side effects, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both goal and agent_id accurately. The description adds some context about prerequisites and budget/policy behavior, but it does not substantially enhance the parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run one goal on an existing agent until completion, policy deny, or budget stop.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and termination conditions, and distinguishes it from multi-agent orchestration by naming create_workflow as the alternative.

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 explicit usage guidance: use create_agent first to obtain an agent_id, and use create_workflow instead for multi-agent orchestration. It also implies this tool is for single-goal execution on an existing agent, giving an agent enough context to select it correctly.

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