run_project_tests

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states basic action (discover/run) and result type (structured results). Missing details on side effects, error handling, timeout behavior, or what 'structured results' entails. Not enough disclosure.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with key actions and frameworks. No wasted words, though additional structure (e.g., separating discover and run) could improve clarity. Appropriate length for a simple description.

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 no output schema, description should explain return values and behavior. 'Structured results' is vague. For a tool with 7 parameters, multiple frameworks, and two actions, the description is too brief and lacks completeness for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds context about supported frameworks but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema. Baseline 3 due to high coverage, with minor added value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool discovers or runs tests, specifies frameworks (native, GUT, GdUnit4), and mentions structured results. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_project' which runs the project, not tests.

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?

Description implies usage for testing but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_project' or 'verify_project'. No contextual hints on choosing discover vs run or framework selection.

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