ruvltra_code_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the outcome and a quality tip, without revealing whether tests are executed, whether code is modified, what the response format is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence adds a useful quality note. There is no filler, but the brevity contributes to under-specification, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

For a tool with four input parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no explanation of inputs, this description is far too minimal. It lacks parameter semantics, output behavior, supported languages/frameworks, and error conditions. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input guidance.

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 needed to explain the parameters. It does not mention code, language, framework, or timeoutMs at all, and the vague tip about 'instructions and context' is not mapped to any parameter. An agent cannot infer parameter meaning from this description.

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 a specific action: generate tests for provided code. The focus on 'tests' distinguishes it from siblings like ruvltra_code_generate, ruvltra_code_review, and ruvltra_code_refactor, so an agent can select it based on purpose alone.

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 the tool should be used when tests for existing code are needed, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. The English-language tip is a quality hint rather than a usage condition.

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