run_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that 'continue_background' returns a durable job_id for later use, and that 'kill' or 'return_partial' are for bounded work. However, it does not cover other important aspects like whether the tool is read-only, what happens on timeout with 'return_partial', or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 relatively short but includes a redundant prefix ('Kali Agent MCP tool: run_tests'). The key content (timing guidance) is front-loaded after the prefix, but the initial sentence is not the most direct statement of purpose. It could be more concise by removing the prefix and starting with the action. Structure is adequate but not optimal.

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?

Given 8 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed), the description does not fully equip the agent. It lacks explanation of the core 'command' and 'path' parameters, the 'background' flag, and the overall outcome beyond timing. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but essential context for using the tool is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 5 of the 8 parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, on_timeout) and their meanings, including details on on_timeout values. However, it omits 'path', 'command', and 'background', which are important for core usage. This partial coverage earns a middle score.

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 states the tool is 'run_tests' but focuses on timing parameters rather than explicitly explaining that it executes tests. The core action is clear from the name, but the description does not elaborate on what tests are run or how. This is adequate but not explicit.

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 guidance on choosing timing parameters and on_timeout values for different scenarios (long work vs bounded synchronous work). However, it lacks comparison to sibling tools like 'exec_command' or 'run_benchmark', failing to clarify when to use this tool over alternatives. This is insufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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