manage_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering basic safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as 'get the latest test report' implying results are stored. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption, need for a running editor), but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists actions with brief parenthetical explanations. Every element earns its place; no wasted words or 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?

The tool has moderate complexity with five actions, and the description covers all of them with short glosses. It lacks an output schema, but the description does not need to explain return formats. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., tests must be compiled) or result handling, but given the schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete for selecting and invoking actions.

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 input schema covers parameter names and some descriptions (100% coverage), but the action parameter's schema description ('The test action to execute') is generic. The tool description adds value by explaining each action's purpose (e.g., 'discover available tests' for list_tests), enriching the enum semantics. It does not add much for filter and test_name, but the schema descriptions for those are already clear.

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 purpose: 'Run and manage UE Automation Tests.' It uses a specific verb ('run and manage') and resource ('UE Automation Tests'), and enumerates distinct actions (list_tests, run_test, etc.) that differentiate it from sibling tools like manage_asset or manage_blueprint, which target other domains.

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 provides clear context by listing actions and their brief explanations, implying when each action is appropriate (e.g., 'discover available tests' for list_tests). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no explicit exclusion is necessary.

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