vitest_run_verification

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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain what happens when the tool is invoked. It only says it 'runs test verification', not whether it executes commands, modifies the package, creates artifacts, or what the verification result looks like. The supported targets and legacy label add some context, but the actual behavioral impact is mostly undisclosed.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the key discriminator (supported test runners). It wastes little space, though 'in the target package' is partly redundent with the packagePath parameter.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns or what success looks like, which an agent would need to verify result correctly. This is an acceptable baseline but leaves notable gaps.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the description is not needed for basic semantics. However, it adds value by grouping the enum values into meaningful categories: Vitest Browser vs. Vitest Node, and legacy Moocha Node / Karma Browser. This helps an agent understand the target parameter beyond raw enum strings.

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 uses a clear verb ('runs') and a specific resource ('test verification') and details the exact supported runners: Vitest Browser, Vitest Node, Mocha Node, Karma Browser. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like vitest_classify_package or vitest_scaffold_config, which have different purposes.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of or after the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when verification is appropriate, or how to choose among the four targets. The target enum gives options but no decision-making context.

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