hb_test_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether execution is blocking, timeouts, permission needs, or how failures surface. For an execution tool this is a substantial gap; 'Run' alone does not tell an agent what will happen.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage context rather than compensating for it.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain what execution produces and where results are retrieved (likely hb_test_results), but it does neither. For a test-execution tool with side effects and no structured coverage, the description is materially incomplete.

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 100%, so both 'battery' and 'test' are already documented in the schema. The description only hints that a single test may be run instead of a battery, which is already implied by the optional 'test' parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('test battery or single test'), which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings hb_test_list and hb_test_results. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain the boundary, so it stops 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus hb_test_list or hb_test_results, no prerequisites (must the battery already exist?), and no indication of when a single test is preferable to a battery. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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