BearQ: Run Test Cases

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. It adds the draft-rejection constraint and workspace-default environment context, but it doesn't disclose whether execution is asynchronous, whether results are returned immediately, or whether re-running the same IDs has side effects. 'Runs' sits somewhat uneasily with readOnlyHint but is not a direct 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 main action is front-loaded and the important draft-rejection behavior is prominent. The explicit Parameters block repeats schema descriptions, creating minor redundancy, but the overall length remains compact and scannable.

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 2-parameter tool with strong annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly. It could be more complete by noting how results or task status are retrieved and how it compares with nearby bearq_run_* siblings, but these are not blocking for correct use.

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%, and the Description's Parameters block largely duplicates the schema text verbatim ('IDs of BearQ regression test cases to run', 'Omit to use the workspace default'). The description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific action ('Runs specific BearQ regression test cases') with the resource (test cases) and a clear selection mechanism (by ID). The qualifiers 'specific... by ID' and 'regression-ready cases — drafts will be rejected' distinguish it from sibling run tools like bearq_run_regression_tests and bearq_run_tests_in_functional_areas.

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?

Gives clear context: use for specific BearQ regression test cases by ID, and do not pass drafts since they will be rejected. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when those should be used instead.

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