Detect pre-existing tests whose lines were rewritten or deleted, then run the original tests against current code via run_template to catch silent assertion changes.
List pre-existing tests whose lines were rewritten or deleted. With run_template (containing {files}) run the original tests against the current code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| project | No | Absolute project root (once per session is enough) | |
| run_template | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 that tests are listed and executed against current code, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens when tests fail.
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?
Two sentences, with the primary listing purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly telegraphic but still earns its place by explaining the run_template placeholder.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, an ambiguous tool name, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, output shape, or how the listed tests relate to the subsequent run.
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 coverage is low at 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for run_template by noting it contains a {files} placeholder, but it leaves cwd undocumented and adds little for project beyond the schema's own description.
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 specific verbs ('List', 'run') on a clear resource ('pre-existing tests' / 'original tests') and explains the run_template mechanism. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like search or run, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies the context of rewritten or deleted lines, but never states when to choose guard over search, run, report, or checkpoint. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.