run_tests

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

The description discloses that it runs as a job and writes NUnit-XML output, which is useful beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-destructive). It could add detail on side effects or state changes, but overall it provides relevant behavioral 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 three sentences, starting with the main action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but it remains efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only the platform and output format. It omits explanation of test_filter, categories, assemblies, version, and error handling. The tool's complexity demands more detail for complete guidance.

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 has zero descriptions, and the description only adds meaning for the 'platform' parameter by listing possible values. Other parameters (project_path, test_filter, categories, assemblies, version) are not explained, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 Unity tests via the test framework as a job, specifies platform options (EditMode, PlayMode, StandaloneWindows64), and mentions output format. It differentiates from sibling get_test_results by naming it as the follow-up.

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 instructs to call get_test_results after running, guiding the workflow. It also lists platform choices. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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