run_test_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('run') and provides an example, but fails to mention side effects, output, or any changes to the system. The description is minimal and leaves the actual execution behavior (e.g., displaying results, modifying files) undisclosed.

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, direct sentence followed by an example. It is concise, front-loaded, and every element adds value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It tells the user what the tool does and an example, but does not explain what happens after execution (e.g., test results, error reporting). More detail about the execution outcome would improve completeness, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 schema has one required string parameter with no description. The description partially compensates by providing an example 'res://test_test_player.gd', which clarifies the expected resource-path format. However, it does not fully explain the parameter semantics (e.g., constraints on file type or path structure), relying on the example to convey meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Ejecutar un archivo de pruebas' (Run a test file). It includes a concrete example of the file path, making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like run_all_tests by specifying a single test file rather than all tests.

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 through the example (run a specific test file) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like run_all_tests or get_failures. No clear 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, relying on the user to infer from the name and example.

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