typora_run_fixture

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it writes separate evidence, requires explicit opt-in for shared targets, and guarantees shared targets are never closed or restarted. This reassures about blast radius in a way the annotations alone do not.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the constraint about shared targets follows. Appropriately sized for a three-parameter tool.

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?

For a destructive, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers safety-relevant behavior (opt-in, no close/restart) but does not explain what a fixture is, what 'separate evidence' consists of, or how failures surface. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled given the tool's destructive nature.

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 only 33% (only targetId is documented). The description indirectly illuminates allowSharedTarget via 'explicit opt-in' and shared targets, and alludes to the fixture root for fixturePath, but does not document the fixture JSON format, syntax, or the evidence location. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('a declarative JSON fixture from the configured fixture root'), plus a side effect ('write separate evidence'). It is distinguishable from siblings like typora_snapshot or typora_launch, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?

Provides one conditional rule (shared targets require explicit opt-in), but does not state when to choose this tool over siblings such as typora_open_document, typora_snapshot, or typora_status. Usage is implied by the fixture concept rather than spelled out.

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