move_test

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

With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention potential side effects like compilation, output format, or exit code behavior, leaving the agent without critical execution context.

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, tightly-worded sentence with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded but may be too sparse to convey essential operational details.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain result formats or success/failure behavior. It only states the basic action, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to use it effectively.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions ('Path to the Move package' and 'Test filter pattern'), so the schema covers semantics entirely. The description adds no parameter-specific insights, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Move unit tests'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like move_test_coverage, which could also be used for test execution.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_test_coverage or move_build. The description offers no exclusions or context for selecting it.

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