Run tests

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing normalization behavior ('paths, durations, timestamps and colour codes removed'), reproducibility ('two identical runs produce identical text'), and the return format ('verdict plus both normalized and raw output'). These behavioral details are not present in the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds meaningful detail (fixed environment, timeout, normalization, return output). It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

The description covers behavioral and output aspects well, and an output schema exists to detail return values. However, it omits parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance, leaving gaps for a 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage.

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 only 17% (only 'command' has a description). The description mentions 'fixed environment' and 'wall clock timeout' but does not map these to the 'env', 'timeoutMs', or other parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 the tool's action: 'Runs a command in a workspace under a fixed environment and a wall clock timeout, then parses the output into a pass/fail summary with failing test names.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling file-operation tools like read_workspace and write_files.

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 implies it is for running tests but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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