run_smoke_tests

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: synchronous in-editor execution, aggregate-only output (no per-test logs), and the failure mode under a commandlet where ran/all_passed return false. It does not explain why destructiveHint=true for a test runner, which is the one annotation an agent would want clarified.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the caveat, then the alternative. The trailing return-shape line earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the execution model, and the environment caveat. The main gap is the unexplained destructive/high-impact hint, which an agent running project-wide tests would benefit from understanding.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly documents the return shape instead of adding spurious parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Runs every registered automation test with the smoke filter' and returns an aggregate. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-test sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'For one test with its log entries use run_automation_test.' It also flags the commandlet environment where the tool is effectively a no-op. It doesn't address other test-related siblings (list_automation_tests, run_functional_test_in_pie), but the primary routing decision is covered.

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