run_automation_test

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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the safety profile is already covered, but the description goes further by enumerating the full return payload (verdict, duration_s, errors, warnings, entries) that no output schema provides. It does not clarify what state a test may mutate, which is the main residual gap for a destructive-annotated tool.

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 blocks, purpose first, then the return shape. The return enumeration is dense but earns its space because no output schema exists. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema absent, the description supplies the return contract and the synchronous-only scope, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves out only failure-mode behavior and any side effects implied by the destructive annotation.

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% and the schema already documents test_name as the exact registered name from list_automation_tests. The description adds only the phrase 'by name,' so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (run), a specific resource (a single automation test), and a scoping constraint (by name, synchronous tests only), which is enough to separate it from run_smoke_tests or get_automation_test_results. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 parenthetical '(synchronous tests only)' is a genuine usage constraint, implying asynchronous tests must be handled elsewhere, and the schema ties the input to list_automation_tests. However, no alternative tool is named for async tests and there is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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