run_tests_no_verbosity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output verbosity level, which is useful, but lacks details on what 'run all tests' entails (e.g., test types, execution environment, success/failure handling, or any side effects like timeouts or resource usage). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Run all tests') and adds necessary detail ('with minimal output (verbosity level 0)'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and verbosity level, which is sufficient for basic use, but lacks details on test scope, execution behavior, or output format, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the verbosity level, which is not captured in the schema, making it helpful for understanding the tool's configuration despite the lack of parameters.

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 the action ('Run all tests') and specifies the execution mode ('with minimal output (verbosity level 0)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_tests_verbose' and 'run_tests_very_verbose' by indicating the verbosity level, though it doesn't explicitly mention what 'tests' refers to or the scope beyond 'all'.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'minimal output (verbosity level 0)', which suggests this tool is for quick, concise test runs compared to verbose alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other test-running tools or provide exclusions, such as not using it for debugging detailed failures.

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