unitTestRun

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. 'Runs unit tests' implies an execution action but lacks details on permissions, side effects, output format, or runtime behavior. It fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic verb, making it inadequate for a tool with potential mutations or complex operations.

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 with just two words, 'Runs unit tests,' which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but it earns a high score for brevity and lack of redundancy.

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 complexity of a tool that likely executes tests (implying potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, it is incomplete. The description doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output expectations, or usage context, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('url' and 'flags') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what the 'url' refers to or typical 'flags' values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Runs unit tests' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'unitTestRun' without specifying what kind of unit tests or on what resource. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass', leaving the purpose vague and minimally informative beyond the obvious.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass' among the siblings, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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