run_tests

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Describes return values (exit code, runner name, structured tail) and notes it's shell-bound. Lacks details on timeouts, environment requirements, or potential side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then context and output details. No extraneous content.

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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, description covers return info and usage context. Could mention prerequisites or compare to sibling 'run_quality_checks' for fuller guidance.

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 parameters are already documented. Description adds minimal value beyond the schema by stating 'narrow the run'. No examples or interaction details.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run the consumer project's test suite' and explains auto-detected runners. Purpose is specific and contextualized for verifying changes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'run_quality_checks', which could cause confusion.

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?

Provides context 'Use to verify a change before claiming it works' and mentions optional narrowing with filter/path. No explicit exclusions or alternatives compared to siblings like 'run_quality_checks'.

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