BearQ: Run Tests in Functional Areas

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

The description claims to 'run tests', implying a mutation or triggering action, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, creating a clear contradiction. Additionally, the tool likely starts an asynchronous task (suggested by 'Toolset: Tasks'), yet no behavioral details are provided such as whether it returns immediately, what the response format is, or any side effects. This lack of transparency undermines agent decision-making.

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 concise, with the main action front-loaded. The 'Toolset: Tasks' line provides minor context but could be omitted without loss. Overall, it is efficient but lacks some structure for critical details.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's likely asynchronous behavior (starting a task), the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a task ID) or how to obtain results. The contradiction further reduces completeness. Important context about resource usage or time expectations is missing.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no new meaning beyond restating that functional areas can be given by ID or name and environment is optional. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 every regression test case tagged with one or more functional areas, specifying the verb 'runs' and the resource 'regression test cases' with a clear filtering scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'bearq_run_regression_tests' which likely runs all regression tests without filtering.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering by functional areas and an optional environment, but lacks direct comparisons to siblings such as 'bearq_run_regression_tests' or 'bearq_run_test_cases'. The purpose is implicit but not reinforced with usage advice.

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