runTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, output, and execution details. It only states the action 'run tests' without mentioning whether tests could mutate data, how results are returned, or any environmental prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have side effects during test execution.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the key optional filter aspect. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly minimal but still lacks important context such as what the command returns (e.g., pass/fail output) or any side effects on the test environment. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema already provides a descriptive comment for the filter parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a high-level mention of 'optional filter' but no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already says, 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 clearly states the tool runs PHPUnit tests, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('PHPUnit tests'). It also mentions the optional filter capability, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like artisan or migrateStatus that perform different tasks.

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 implies the tool should be used when running PHPUnit tests, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like artisan or when not to use it. The optional filter hint is the only contextual usage clue, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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