run_impacted_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior beyond the core action—no info on test execution details, error handling, output format, or effects (e.g., no mention of file modifications or state changes).

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?

A single sentence is concise, but it lacks structure—no separation of purpose, parameters, or behavior. The sentence is front-loaded with the key action, but brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter interdependencies, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if no impacted tests are found). The agent would need additional documentation.

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?

With only 13% schema coverage (only 'project' has a description) and no parameter details in the description, the agent must rely on parameter names. While names like 'changed_files' and 'timeout_sec' are somewhat intuitive, the description adds no value to clarify meaning or usage, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 pytest on files impacted by worktree changes, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('pytest on impacted files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_breaking_changes' and 'find_impacted_test_files', though 'impacted' is not precisely defined.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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