run_tests

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('structured test results with failures and stack traces'), which is useful, but it does not mention potential side effects of running arbitrary test code (e.g., executing project code, downloading dependencies, or producing build artifacts). It is not misleading, just incomplete.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundant detail or complex structure.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only a high-level result summary. It does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must already be built), how Maven vs Gradle is detected, or timeout/performance expectations. The 7 parameters are well documented in the schema, but the operational context is under-specified.

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% and every parameter already has a descriptive comment, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, keeping it at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('tests for a Java project'), and names the build tools (Maven or Gradle). It clearly distinguishes from Node-focused siblings like node_test and from build/compile tools in the sibling list.

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 when to use it — for Java projects using Maven/Gradle, not Node projects — but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like build_project, compile_project, or detect_project. Usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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