Executar testes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool runs tests and auto-detects frameworks, which is useful, but it omits behavioral traits such as requiring an API key for auto-fix/explain features, potential side effects of test execution, or behavior on detection failure. Not misleading, but incomplete.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, lists supported frameworks in a compact manner, and adds the key auto-detection detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 tool's complexity (many frameworks, six parameters, advanced features like autoFixSelector and explainOnFailure), the description is adequate but thin. It covers the main purpose and auto-detection but does not highlight the advanced capabilities or API key requirements, though an output schema exists to handle return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the schema itself already provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including enums and defaults.

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 tool runs project tests with a specific verb and resource, and lists supported frameworks plus auto-detection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_tests and run_linter by focusing on execution with broad framework support.

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 implies usage for running tests with automatic framework detection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like watch_tests or run_linter. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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