run_unit_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions that the command is 'detected.' It fails to explain how detection works, what happens if detection fails, any permission requirements, or the output format. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or error behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is more descriptive than a pure tautology but still too terse to be considered well-structured. It does not front-load any practical detail beyond the purpose.

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 has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides minimal context. It omits parameter semantics, expected behavior, error conditions, and return format. For a test-running tool, this is severely inadequate for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 schema has a 0% description coverage, providing only parameter names (cwd and target) with no type descriptions. The tool description also does not explain these parameters, forcing the agent to guess their meaning. This does not add any value beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool runs unit tests, using the specific verb 'run' and the resource 'unit tests'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_tests or run_integration_tests, and the phrase 'with a detected command' is somewhat ambiguous.

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. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred over run_tests or run_integration_tests, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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