Reflect: Run Test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral context: it does not say whether the run is asynchronous, whether it returns a test run ID, or how results are retrieved.

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 short and front-loaded, but much of it duplicates the title and input schema. The 'Toolset' and 'Parameters' sections add structure without contributing meaningful new information.

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 run action with no output schema, the description leaves the agent without information about expected return values, follow-up status checks, or potential failure modes. The tool is simple, but an agent still needs more context to know what happens after invoking it.

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 the single testId parameter is already fully documented. The description repeats the parameter description verbatim and adds no additional semantic guidance about where to find the ID or how it is used.

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 states the specific action 'Run a reflect test' with a clear resource, and the reflect_ prefix distinguishes it from other domains. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like reflect_execute_suite or reflect_get_test_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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. It does not mention when to prefer reflect_execute_suite for suites, nor how reflect_get_test_status or reflect_get_test_detail should be used afterward.

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