run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (exit code, failing tests, first failure, log path with full log on disk), the meaning of full=true, synchronous waiting behavior, and the refusal-stop-and-report failure protocol. It omits permission/auth needs, the nature of the 'task budget', and any side-effect profile for arbitrary commands.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, and free of filler; the core action and its return contract come first, then the full flag and the refusal protocol. The telegraphic phrasing ('a refusal means: stop and report') is efficient but slightly compressed.

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 6-parameter command-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return values and control flow but leaves the command contract, timeout behavior, and budget semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 50%: cwd, project, and override are documented in-schema, while command, full, and timeout are bare types. The description partially compensates by explaining full=true ('complete check') but adds nothing for command or timeout, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Run a test/check command in the project', which is a clear, concrete action. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but none of the siblings (start, report, search, remember, checkpoint, guard) overlap with test execution, so an agent can still place it.

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?

Gives operational guidance ('Wait for the result; a refusal means: stop and report') and context ('under the task budget'), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to use it versus alternatives or when not to run it, leaving usage inference to the reader.

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