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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the useful note that 'the server stores only bounded metadata and an attested outcome,' which clarifies the persistence boundary. However, it does not disclose whether the request is asynchronous, how failures surface, or what 'attested outcome' means in practice.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the storage caveat follows naturally. It is appropriately sized for what it conveys.

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?

This is a complex tool with 6 parameters, including a nested object, and no output schema. The description fails to explain required parameters like idempotencyKey, the meaning of nodeIds, or the structure of details. It only offers a brief note about server storage, which is insufficient for an agent to call this correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It provides no information about projectId, idempotencyKey, nodeIds, sessionId, executionId, or the details object. The phrase 'selected tests' loosely implies nodeIds but does not explain any parameter.

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: 'Request the connected local agent to run selected tests.' It clearly conveys the action and target. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but 'run selected tests' is sufficiently distinct from nearby tools like relay_execute_local_action or submit_node_instruction to avoid obvious confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name alone when this is appropriate relative to the many sibling tools.

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