sf_run_apex_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Run Apex tests' without mentioning whether execution is synchronous, what outputs are produced, or any side effects, which is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity causes under-specification, making it less effective than a concise description that includes key context.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain test selection mechanics, coverage options, or execution behavior, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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?

All 7 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no parameter details. It does not clarify the role of tests, suites, targetOrg, wait, or codeCoverage, leaving the agent without essential parameter semantics.

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 'Run' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Apex tests' with a Salesforce org scope. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool sf_run_apex_test_suite, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives like sf_run_apex_test_suite or sf_execute_anonymous_apex. The description merely states the action without contextual triggers or exclusions.

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