run_atf_test

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the prerequisite ATF_ENABLED=true, which is useful context, but it does not disclose potential side effects, response format, or whether execution is synchronous. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states the action and resource, with the prerequisite neatly parenthesized. There is zero redundant text, and every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It does not mention how to access results (e.g., via get_atf_test_result), but that is not strictly necessary given the low complexity and available sibling tools. Slightly more context about expected outcomes would make it complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (sys_id as 'System ID of the test'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 a specific verb ('Execute') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single ATF test'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_atf_suite (single vs. suite). The phrase 'single' explicitly narrows scope, avoiding ambiguity with list/get operations.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'requires ATF_ENABLED=true', which is a useful when-to-use condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, though the sibling tool names (e.g., run_atf_suite) imply the distinction. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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