Run project tests

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: tests can 'create files and execute project-controlled code,' and runs as a background job. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying what side effects to expect, and it is consistent with the destructive hint.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters, an output schema, and a background-job workflow, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to track the job, interpret results, or handle failures. While the output schema may cover return structure, the description omits essential operational context (e.g., async behavior, retrieval via get_job), making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter explanation. It mentions none of the eight parameters (project, cwd, argv, attempt, profile, etc.), leaving the agent to guess at their semantics and usage. Some names are self-explanatory, but this is insufficient given the tool's complexity.

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 'Start authorized project tests as a background job' clearly states the verb (start), the resource (project tests), and the mode (background job). It distinguishes this tool from generic command execution and other job-related siblings by focusing on tests specifically.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_command or other job tools. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer when running tests via this route is appropriate.

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