bowire.test.run

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses per-row iteration semantics, that failures identify the iteration and source row, that it can run as an MCP task with status messages and tasks/cancel boundaries, and it defines the exit-code contract. It omits side effects of writing junitPath/reportPath files and any environment/auth prerequisites.

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 core action, then progressively adds data mode, task mode, and return contract in three dense sentences. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the return shape is stated last where an agent expects it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately supplies the return object and exit-code meanings, and it covers the non-obvious task-mode behavior. It is nearly complete for a test runner; the only gap is whether environment or auth setup is required before running.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for `data`: it clarifies that columns become variables, that the collection runs once per row, and that failures name the iteration. It adds nothing for failFast, junitPath, or reportPath beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run a Bowire test collection or flow") and immediately enumerates the constituent operations: invoke every test, evaluate assertions, report pass/fail. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like bowire.invoke (single invocation) and bowire.assert (single assertion).

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 makes the selection context clear by anchoring to `bowire test` and by explaining the data-driven mode, so an agent knows when the multi-test path applies rather than a single invoke. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly or stating when not to use it (e.g. use bowire.lint to validate without executing).

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