runUnitTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it 'returns instructions' but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or that it does not execute tests directly. Minimal disclosure.

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 sentence, but it is somewhat convoluted and could be clearer. It is adequately concise but not optimally structured for quick understanding.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and a preparation/instruction-returning role, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned instructions look like, how to proceed after receiving them, or prerequisites.

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 coverage is only 20% (1 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'source + pltst files' but does not explain the roles of 'workspace', 'methodName', 'confirmed', or 'environmentKey' beyond what schema provides. Fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 specifies a verb ('prepare') and resource ('PL/SQL unit test execution'), and mentions returning instructions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generateUnitTest' and 'runPlsqlTestWorkflow' by implying it is a preparation step, though it could be more direct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., checkUnitTestability, generateUnitTest). The context hints at a workflow but does not provide usage rules or exclusions.

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