as_gradle_test

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

The description discloses that the tool writes HTML/XML test reports under build directories and returns JSON with gradle status and parsed failures. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds meaningful side-effect and output context.

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 concise with two clear sections: one for purpose and one for parameters/returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler content.

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 the complexity (nested parameters with four fields) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but declared), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It mentions report file paths and return structure, though it could note device requirements for instrumented tests more directly.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all four sub-properties (project_dir, timeout, instrumented, module). The tool description reiterates these but does not add significant new meaning, so it meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool runs unit tests (default) or instrumented connected tests. The verb 'run' and resource 'Gradle tests' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like as_gradle_assemble or as_gradle_run_task, though the context implies a testing focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it or suggest other tools for different Gradle tasks, leaving the agent without context for choosing this over siblings.

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