test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Run all tests' implies execution but does not mention side effects (e.g., file modifications, network calls), output format, or failure behavior, leaving significant unknowns.

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 extremely concise (3 words), but at the cost of clarity and completeness. It sacrifices necessary context for brevity, making it borderline too short to be helpful.

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 presence of many sibling tools and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'all tests' entails, return values, or how it differs from related tools like 'test-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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 'Run all tests' provides a verb and resource, indicating the tool executes tests, but it is vague about the type and scope of tests, especially given siblings like 'test-coverage' and 'lint'. It does not distinguish itself clearly from other testing-related tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test-coverage', 'lint', or 'check'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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