run_tests

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return payload (stdout/stderr/exit_code), which is real value given there is no output schema. However it omits execution semantics that matter for a process-spawning tool: what command gets detected, the working directory used, the default timeout, and what happens when the timeout fires or the command fails.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the action and its return shape with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no output schema, the definition covers the action and return values but leaves execution-side behavior (detection source, timeout handling, failure modes) and the meaning of timeout_ms undocumented for an operation that spawns a process.

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% for both parameters, and the description explains neither. repo_path is guessable, but timeout_ms is unaddressed—no default, units beyond the name, or behavior on expiry—leaving the agent to guess at semantics the schema does not document.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Detect and run the project's test command') and implies auto-detection, which distinguishes it from the generic run_command and from the parallel run_lint/run_typecheck/run_build siblings. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over run_command, run_build, or run_lint, and no prerequisites such as whether dependencies must be installed or whether project_detect should be called first. The agent must infer the whole usage context from the name.

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