run_tests

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

The description mentions that the tool returns stdout, stderr, and exit code, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the repository is modified, execution environment, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes essential output information without any redundant or superfluous 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?

While the description notes return values, it omits critical context for a test-running tool: execution directory, handling of timeouts, test result interpretation, and prerequisites. Given the tool's potential impact and the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient for 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameters, but it does not mention 'repo_path' or 'command' at all. The default value for 'command' is given in the schema but not explained in the description, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 states 'Run tests inside the repository' which is a clear verb-resource pairing. It effectively conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'retry_fix_with_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or scenarios where it might be inappropriate. The description solely defines what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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