Detect Test Commands

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true; the description adds 'without running them' reinforcing non-destructive nature, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like heuristics used or limitations.

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?

Single sentence with 9 words, front-loaded with the action and key differentiator. 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?

Output schema exists (not shown), so return values are covered. However, description lacks detail on what 'detect' entails (heuristics, scope) and the word 'likely' introduces ambiguity. For a simple tool, it's barely adequate.

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?

Only one parameter 'projectPath' with 0% schema description coverage. Description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name (e.g., what path it should point to, required format). Given low coverage, description should compensate but fails.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('detect') and resource ('project test commands') and adds 'without running them' to distinguish from the sibling 'test.run' which executes 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?

Implies use for inspection before running, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'project.scripts' or 'shell.exec'. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use.

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