Run Project Tests

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

Annotations are all false (no hints), and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether tests are run locally, if files are modified, or if a project must be open. No additional context beyond the schema.

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 truncated sentence ending with an ellipsis, under-specified and not well-structured. It fails to concisely convey the tool's function despite the schema detail.

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 the complex oneOf schema, 7 parameters, and presence of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the distinction between discover and run, frameworks, or return values. The schema compensates partially but the narrative is lacking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating the action parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Discover or run native, GUT, and GdU…' indicating test operations, but it is truncated and lacks specificity. Without sibling context, the purpose is vague; however, the title 'Run Project Tests' helps. Score 3 as it gives basic verb+resource but with ambiguity.

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?

No guidelines on when to use this tool versus siblings like run_project or verify_project. No context on prerequisites or scenarios. The description does not address alternatives or when not to use.

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