run_qa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (text summary) and the side effect of saving failure screenshots to a specific directory. It doesn't mention other potential side effects like auth or data mutation, but for a QA run tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main function, describing results and storage, and directing to an alternative. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description lacks an output schema but mentions the return type. It explains the batch execution purpose, output format, and side effect location, which is reasonably complete for a batch tool. It doesn't detail failure interpretation or prerequisites, but sibling tools likely cover setup, so it is still adequate.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema. It implies 'all or some' which aligns with the schema but doesn't elaborate on parameter details, so the baseline 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 that the tool executes all or some registered scripts for QA inspection, using a specific verb '실행' (execute) and a resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool run_qa_single by positioning itself as a batch runner, which helps with selection.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for batch execution of multiple scripts) and directs users to run_qa_single for individual failure screenshots, thus naming an alternative and giving a clear when-not scenario.

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