Reflect: Run Test

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond stating 'Run a reflect test'. Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which contradicts the implied mutation of running a test. The description fails to clarify or resolve this inconsistency.

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, using a single sentence and a list of parameters. However, it redundantly restates the parameter description already present in the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 output schema and the single parameter, the description omits important context such as whether the test runs synchronously, what the response contains, or side effects. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's description of testId. It repeats the parameter info without additional context like format or constraints.

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 'Run a reflect test' combined with the parameter testId clearly indicates the tool executes a specific test. Among sibling tools like reflect_list_tests and reflect_get_test_status, this purpose is distinct, though it could be more explicit about running a single test vs a suite.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reflect_execute_suite or reflect_list_tests. The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions for running a test.

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