run_atf_suite

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the prerequisite ATF_ENABLED=true, which is useful configuration context. However, it does not disclose what executing a suite entails (e.g., running multiple tests, generating results) or how the outcome is returned, leaving the behavioral profile thin.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return behavior or next steps, but it does not. It fails to mention that running a suite may produce test results retrievable via get_atf_suite_result, nor does it note potential side effects or blocking behavior. For an execution tool, this is a significant omission.

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?

The input schema provides a complete description of the single parameter sys_id (System ID of the test suite), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Execute' with the resource 'ATF test suite', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_atf_test, list_atf_suites, and get_atf_suite. The added prerequisite (ATF_ENABLED=true) further clarifies the exact operation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to run an ATF suite) and states a required condition (ATF_ENABLED=true). However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like run_atf_test or mention when to prefer one over the other, so it lacks all exclusion guidance but is still clear.

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