Run Rego tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool runs tests and returns results, implying no side effects. It could explicitly mention it is read-only or doesn't modify state, but given the simple nature, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and output format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple and the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and naming conventions. While it lacks output schema details and examples, the information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly for its intended purpose.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the `paths` parameter by explaining how `opa test` looks for test files, but for `verbose` and `coverage` parameters, the description repeats the schema descriptions without additional insight.

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 Rego unit tests with `opa test` and returns aggregate pass/fail counts and per-test records. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rego_check (syntax check) and rego_eval (evaluation) by focusing on unit tests.

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 explains that tests live in `*_test.rego` files and rule names starting with `test_` are picked up, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like rego_generate_test_skeleton or rego_bench.

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