BearQ: Run Test Cases

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

The description claims to run tests, which is a mutative action, yet annotations set readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not resolve the inconsistency or explain behavioral traits beyond 'drafts will be rejected', which is insufficient given the annotation conflict. Score is 1 due to annotation contradiction.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one line for toolset, and a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence has clear value, front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, but the description does not mention return values, task creation, or how to check results. Sibling tools like bearq_get_task_status and bearq_wait_for_task suggest it returns a task ID, but this is missing. Also, the 'Toolset: Tasks' hint is insufficient. The description is incomplete for a run action.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the schema fields (testCaseIds as array of IDs, environment as optional string) without adding new meaning or contextual usage beyond what the schema already provides. No extra value added.

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 it runs specific BearQ regression test cases by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bearq_run_regression_tests (all tests) and bearq_run_tests_in_functional_areas (by area). The verb 'runs' and resource 'test cases' are specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear condition: 'Targets only regression-ready cases — drafts will be rejected.' It also lists parameters with brief descriptions. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool over other run tools (e.g., when you have specific IDs vs. running all tests in an area). The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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