digital_run_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the headless CLI mechanism but does not describe side effects, output format, failure behavior, or what happens on test failure. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that executes tests.

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 focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core operation and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin for an agent to call the tool confidently. It omits return value information, timeout/verbose semantics, and any expected outcome or error handling details.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about path, verbose, or timeout_seconds. An agent cannot determine what verbose controls or how timeout_seconds affects execution from either the schema or the description.

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 specific verb ('Run') and resource ('test cases embedded in a Digital .dig file') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like digital_inspect_circuit or digital_build_circuit by focusing on executing embedded tests. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to run embedded test cases—but it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions compared with siblings. There is enough context to infer basic usage, but no direct guidance.

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