test_app_in_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the concrete side effects (copies the app into a VM, runs an installer and the app, captures exit/output, screenshots) and where artifacts land (tests/results/, tests/RESULTS.md). However, it says nothing about VM state mutation, cleanup, or error/timeout handling for what is clearly a side-effecting orchestration tool.

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 workflow, then two focused second-paragraph clauses on command format and artifact locations. Reasonably tight with little filler, though the arg-format note is terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description does convey the overall flow and artifact destinations. But for an 8-parameter, annotation-free, side-effecting tool it leaves most parameter meanings and state-mutation semantics unaddressed.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate; it only clarifies install_cmd and run_cmd as 'single command lines (argv[0] + args)'. The other six parameters (vm, args, label, timeout, app_path, workspace) get no explanation anywhere, leaving most of the input surface undocumented.

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 names a specific composite workflow ('full app-compat cycle') and enumerates its steps (copy app, run install_cmd, run app, capture exit/output, screenshot, PASS/FAIL). That clearly distinguishes it from a single-command sibling like vm_exec. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer when a full cycle is not needed.

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?

Usage is implied by the workflow framing (it is the end-to-end compat test) and by the pointer to RULES.md for reference apps. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-vm_exec or when-not-to guidance.

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