run_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: execution is headless and the result is a summary. It omits failure/exit behavior, what happens on timeout, and that the summary is returned as text rather than a structured 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and the discovery patterns before the execution mode. No wasted words, though the GUT parenthetical and glob list make it slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return, and 'with a summary' only gestures at it. For a test runner with no annotations, more on pass/fail reporting and timeout effects would be needed for a higher score.

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 all three parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the general notion of test discovery, 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?

States a specific verb (run) plus the resource and its discovery rules (*test*.tscn, *test*.gd, GUT), which is concrete and distinguishable from most siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling dotnet_test, which is also a test-running tool, so the boundary is not fully drawn.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling dotnet_test, an agent gets no help deciding which test runner applies to a given project; the 'Godot/GUT' framing implies usage but never states it.

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