run_converge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses the iterative process (baseline then follow-up rounds), stopping conditions (pass rate and gap thresholds or max rounds), and output behavior (returns results across all rounds and opens the final HTML report). It doesn't mention potential side effects on the app or resource usage, but for a testing tool the core behavior is well covered.

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 zero waste. The core function is front-loaded, followed by the use-case and output behavior. Every clause adds value, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does ('Returns results across all rounds and opens the final HTML report'). It also explains the iterative process and stopping criteria, covering all essential behavioral aspects. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is complete for an agent to invoke it 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 100%, so all parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for high coverage. The mention of 'targeting coverage gaps' indirectly relates to target_pass_rate and max_high_severity_gaps, but it's not explicit enough to exceed baseline.

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 ('runs iterative coverage') and resource (full baseline suite plus follow-up rounds), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'targeting coverage gaps and failed scenarios' until thresholds are met. The use-case phrase 'keep testing until coverage is good' further clarifies its unique role.

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 says 'Use for "keep testing until coverage is good"', which is a clear when-to-use signal. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like run_full_test or execute_scenario, but the iterative nature and explicit use-case give sufficient guidance for an agent to select it.

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