Run unit tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (parsed pass/fail summary with failure messages) but does not mention potential side effects like Gradle build artifacts, network access, or whether it modifies project state. The description adds some value but leaves the safety profile implied.

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 one sentence, front-loads the action, and includes the key return detail. No wasted words; every phrase 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?

For a relatively simple tool with fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It explains the primary behavior and return value. It lacks explicit reference to Gradle session defaults or relationship to sibling tools, but those are not critical for basic usage.

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 four parameters are already clearly explained in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool runs local JVM unit tests, specifies the Gradle task pattern (test<Variant>UnitTest), and notes the parsed pass/fail summary with failure messages. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling test_instrumented by emphasizing 'local JVM'.

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 clear context that this is for local JVM unit tests, implying it is not for instrumented tests. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use test_instrumented for device tests'.

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