test_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions output reduction (200 to 10-15 lines) but does not warn that executing test commands can have side effects (e.g., modifying state, running arbitrary scripts). This is a significant omission for a tool that runs user-provided commands.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output, followed by a brief list of supported runners. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output content (total/passed/failed/skipped + failure details) and the input reduction. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., JSON format) and error handling, which would be helpful for a complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds limited value beyond the schema: it lists a subset of supported runners (already in the enum) and implies auto-detection, which is already stated in the schema's runner description. No new parameter semantics are provided.

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 specifies the verb 'run tests' and the resource 'tests', and details the output format (total/passed/failed/skipped + failure details). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (no other test runners) and lists supported runners, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by listing supported test runners (vitest, jest, etc.) and mentioning auto-detection when the runner is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though sibling tools are sufficiently distinct.

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