crosspad_test_run

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it configures cmake with BUILD_TESTING=ON (showing it's not just a test binary invocation but also performs a build step) and parses Catch2 output into passed/failed counts and errors, which is behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 description is compact—two sentences covering purpose, rationale for preference, and key capabilities in the first sentence, with the second sentence clarifying the filter default edge case. Every element earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema present, and the description covers the essential behavioral details (build configuration, output parsing, filter and list_only support). The description adequately explains return value semantics via the output schema. For a tool with 2 parameters both fully documented, this is reasonably complete—slightly limited only by not specifiying build failure handling, but this is minor given the complexity.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds the note that 'Default '' (empty) runs ALL tests — there is no opt-out for no tests' for the filter param, which enriches the schema slightly. However, the description doesn't add much beyond what the schema descriptions already provide for the list_only parameter. 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 clearly states 'Build and run the Catch2 test suite for crosspad-pc' with a specific verb (build and run) and resource (Catch2 test suite for crosspad-pc). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying 'PREFER THIS over invoking the test binary directly', differentiating it from tools like crosspad_build and crosspad_run.

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?

Explicitly states 'PREFER THIS over invoking the test binary directly' and explains why (configures cmake with BUILD_TESTING=ON, parses output, supports filter and list_only). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and an implicit alternative. The filter parameter description also clarifies the default behavior and the no-opt-out constraint.

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