RunClassTests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it is silent on side effects. It does not say whether running tests activates the class, mutates the system, requires authorization, is long-running, or how results are returned. 'Retrieve results' is the only behavioral hint and it is vague.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it omits the 'retrieve results' detail of what is returned, keeping it from the top of the range.

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?

This is an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema; the description does not compensate by explaining return values, side effects, or prerequisites. For a test-runner with activation options in its schema, the definition is materially incomplete.

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 class_name, auto_activate, and preaudit_requested are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the conditional dependency of preaudit_requested on auto_activate. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: run unit tests for a class, and mentions retrieving results. An agent can distinguish RunClassTests from GetClassTests (which presumably only retrieves prior results) and RunPackageTests. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 indication of when to use this versus GetClassTests, RunPackageTests, or RunATC. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., class must exist/be active) or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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