qa_run_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal what happens on module failure, whether it modifies state, access permissions needed, or output format. For a test-running tool, basic behavioral info is missing.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and purpose immediately, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage scenario. It mentions 'targeted testing' and gives examples. It could mention the requirement of .mcp-qa-config.json (implied in projectPath schema), but overall it is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, adhering to the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states that the tool runs a single QA test module for a project, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('single QA test module'). It also distinguishes from siblings like qa_run_tests by emphasizing targeted testing of a specific area (e.g., 'just API tests or just VM checks').

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 explicit context, recommending use for targeted testing of a specific area (e.g., 'just API tests or just VM checks'). It implies when to use this tool over alternatives like qa_run_tests, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives directly.

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