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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that execution is sequential, runs in the background, returns the run id immediately, and that progress/report must be obtained via polling. This is strong behavioral transparency for an asynchronous tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then return behavior. No filler; every clause adds value.

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?

Output schema is absent, so the description appropriately explains the immediate return (run id) and the mechanism to get results. It does not cover error cases or cancellation, but for a simple kick-off tool the essentials are present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that suiteId encompasses the suite's plans and one level of child suites, going beyond the schema's simple 'Suite id to execute'. This enhances 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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('every test in a suite'), and scoping details (plans + one level of child suites, sequential execution, on a device). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like test_suite_create and test_suite_run_status by defining the run action.

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 explicitly tells the agent to poll test_suite_run_status(runId) for progress, linking to a concrete sibling and next step. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the background execution and polling guidance provide clear context for when it should be used.

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