Run VBA tests

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior: tests are run individually, hangs become timeouts without blocking others, and the result format includes assertion message, failing line, call stack, and logged output. It also mentions that the harness provides PyvbaAssert and PyvbaAssertEqual. It does not specify whether tests can have side effects, but given destructiveHint=false and the test-runner purpose, this is acceptable.

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 4 sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds prerequisites, behavioral guarantees, and test-authoring guidance. Every sentence serves a distinct informational need and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present), the description covers what an agent needs: what tests are run, isolation and timeout behavior, what the result contains, platform prerequisites, and the required assertion library. Even though output schema exists, the description's explanation of return values is a useful supplement and not redundant. There are no glaring gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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 schema already documents each parameter (file_path absolute path, timeout seconds per test, module_name module filter). The description adds context about isolation and return format but does not add any extra meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the 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 names a specific verb and resource: it opens and runs VBA tests in an Office file, with a precise inclusion criterion (zero-argument procedures whose name starts with Test). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like xlide_run_macro (runs a single macro) or xlide_run_vba (runs arbitrary VBA), making selection unambiguous.

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?

It states clear prerequisites (Windows only, with the application installed) and defines the test selection rule, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and what it expects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use run_macro instead', but the test-specific scope and prerequisites give sufficient context to choose it over siblings.

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