qa_run_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses loading config, executing modules, and returning a report. However, it does not mention safety (e.g., whether tests can modify state), idempotency, or error behavior.

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 with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action and quickly provides additional details. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description mentions returning a 'formatted report' but lacks specifics on the report format or contents. Also lacks error handling or edge case info. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds slight context (e.g., 'Only run tests whose names contain this substring' for filter) but largely restates schema descriptions. No deep semantic enrichment.

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 'Run QA tests for a project' with a specific verb and resource, and references the config file .mcp-qa-config.json. It distinguishes from siblings like qa_run_module by mentioning optional filtering by modules or test name.

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 implies usage (when you want to run tests) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like qa_run_module or qa_list_modules. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.

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