run_tests_very_verbose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output verbosity level but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as execution time, side effects, error handling, or what 'run all tests' entails (e.g., test types, scope). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential operational impacts.

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 core action ('Run all tests') and adds necessary detail ('with very verbose output (verbosity level 2)'). 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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description's focus on verbosity is adequate. However, with no annotations and potential complexity in test execution, it could benefit from more context on what 'tests' include or behavioral expectations, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior, which aligns with the schema's completeness.

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 output characteristic ('with very verbose output (verbosity level 2)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_tests_no_verbosity' and 'run_tests_verbose' by indicating a specific verbosity level, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 through 'very verbose output,' suggesting it's for detailed debugging or logging scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'run_tests_verbose' or 'run_tests_no_verbosity,' and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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