execute_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'execute test' and 'submit' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's destructive, error handling, or what happens after submission. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that appears to modify test state.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that conveys the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the tab context from the action 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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after submission, what success/failure looks like, error conditions, or how it interacts with the test environment. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that appears to perform test execution.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'in specified tab' which aligns with tabIndex, and 'select answers and submit' which aligns with testSelectors and submitButtonSelector, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('execute test'), the target ('in specified tab'), and the specific operations ('select answers and submit'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'click' or 'fill_form' by focusing on test execution with answer selection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'evaluate' which might have overlapping functionality.

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. With siblings like 'click', 'fill_form', and 'evaluate' available, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be better suited for test-related tasks.

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