deed_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output format (JSON lines), the presence of a summary line, no-test behavior, that property lines are generated from `where` clauses and `ensures`, and that seeds are included for reproducibility. It even describes the refusal behavior. This is comprehensive and non-contradictory.

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 composed of four sentences, each covering a distinct and necessary aspect: the core action, the output format, the property generation nuance, and the failure behavior. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description must explain the return format, and it does so thoroughly. It also covers edge cases (no tests), property seeds, and refusal behavior, making it self-contained and complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

There is only one parameter, `source`, with 100% schema description coverage ('The whole text of one Deed module.'). The description does not add additional parameter-specific detail, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Run' with a clear resource 'Deed program's tests', and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling `deed_check` by directing users there for errors. It also clarifies that it covers both `test` blocks and generated properties, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (to run tests) and provides a clear when-not: 'Refuses without running when the program does not check: ask `deed_check` for what is wrong with it.' This direct alternative and exclusion is exactly what usage guidance needs.

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