test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it never says whether running tests is read-only or can modify the workspace/environment, that execution may be long-running (implied only by the 300s default timeout), or what happens on timeout. It does disclose the cross-language scope and the Python-only nature of coverage, which is some added context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. The parameter restatement mirrors the schema, but at 0% schema coverage that repetition is functional rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all five parameters are documented. What is missing is the routing information an agent needs to pick this over siblings and any warning about execution side effects or duration, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete for an execution-style tool.

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 must compensate, and it does: all five parameters are explained, including the important detail that 'path' accepts an absolute path to the project or any file inside it, that 'selector' narrows to one file/test, and that 'coverage' is Python-specific. 'full' is described somewhat cryptically ('el detalle de lo ya visto') but still adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Ejecuta los tests de todos los lenguajes del proyecto') plus the outcome ('localiza cada fallo'), which is far more informative than the bare name 'test'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like 'check', 'gate', or 'fix'.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (check, gate, fix), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the parameter docs (selector limits scope), which the agent must infer.

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