테스트 실행

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description is consistent and adds real context — that tests are actually executed, that timeouts abort the run, and exactly what the structured result contains (suite counts, failure message/exception/file/line). It does not describe pagination or result-size limits beyond maxFailures/maxLogLines.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then filters/preview, then the sibling relationship. Four sentences with little waste, though the return-value sentence is somewhat dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, enumerating suite-level counts and failure details. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and mutation-relevant annotations, an agent has nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining testFilter (specific class/method) and dryRun (preview detected tool/command/report location) as behaviors rather than just field names. The other four params rely on the schema, which fully documents them.

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+resource: it actually executes the project's tests and parses the JUnit XML (surefire/gradle) into structured results. It also positions itself relative to a sibling ('build_egovframe_project 의 테스트 후속'), so an agent can tell it apart from the build tool.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to run tests and get structured pass/fail data, with testFilter for narrowing to a class/method and dryRun to preview the command. It implies the relationship to build_egovframe_project as a follow-up but states no explicit when-not or exclusion.

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