test_fix_incremental

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't clarify what 'fixing failures' means operationally — does it modify source code? regenerate tests? How does the incremental behavior manifest (does it persist state between runs)? For a tool that auto-fixes tests, this behavioral ambiguity is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool of this complexity; the description clearly communicates the core value proposition without padding.

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?

For an auto-fixing test tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about side effects (does it commit changes? modify files?), failure handling, and what 'incrementally' means operationally. Without these details and with no annotations, the agent has incomplete information about a tool that mutates state.

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% and the single param 'spec' is fully described with enum values and meanings in the schema, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The description adds nothing about params, but baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states the verb ('Run tests') and the resource ('incrementally, fixing failures as they occur'), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'test_fix' by noting the incremental approach and speed advantage ('faster for large test suites'). It's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'test_fix' other than implying the incremental strategy.

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 implies when to use it ('faster for large test suites') which serves as a usage hint, but it doesn't give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools like 'test_fix' for smaller suites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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