BearQ: Run Test Cases

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

The description states the tool 'runs' test cases, implying a side-effect operation, but annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'idempotentHint: true'. This is a direct contradiction, reducing transparency. The description does not clarify the behavioral implications.

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 with two sentences plus a 'Toolset' label and parameter documentation. Every part is front-loaded and necessary, with 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 and moderate complexity. The description does not explain what the tool returns or error conditions. Given the annotation contradiction and lack of return value details, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand its behavior.

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 single parameter 'testCaseIds' has identical description in both the description text and the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 verb 'runs' and the resource 'specific BearQ regression test cases by ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bearq_run_regression_tests' (which likely runs all cases) and 'bearq_refine_test_cases'.

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 clear context by specifying 'Targets only regression-ready cases — drafts will be rejected'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bearq_run_regression_tests'.

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