execute_full_test

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details that the tool launches 3-5 allowlisted workers via execFile (never a shell), captures each output, feeds through the same gate as test_hypothesis to prevent fabrication, and that failed/timed-out/non-allowlisted launches are invalid and don't count toward retirement.

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 paragraph of about 5 sentences, reasonably concise. It could benefit from bullet points for the behavioral details, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

No output schema exists. The description mentions capturing output and feeding through test_hypothesis gate, but does not describe the return value format. Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap. However, it covers execution flow, worker launching, and error handling well.

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 description coverage is 60% (3 of 5 params described). The description does not add extra meaning for the undocumented parameters (runId, hypothesisId) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers some parameters adequately, but description does not compensate for the gap.

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 it is a 'SUPERVISOR-EXECUTED full test' that launches frontier workers, captures output, and gates through test_hypothesis. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools (artifact_record, test_hypothesis) and the opt-in requirement.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is off by default with opt-in via env SUPER_LOOP_ALLOW_EXEC=1, and provides a clear alternative: 'Without the opt-in this returns BLOCKED (EXEC_DISABLED) and you record run-logs via artifact_record + test_hypothesis instead.'

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