Run TQL pipeline

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

Annotations indicate `readOnlyHint=false` and `openWorldHint=true`, implying potential side effects and external access. The description adds that diagnostics are enabled, providing useful context, but it fails to disclose that executing TQL pipelines may have side effects or resource implications. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded opening statement followed by a clear bulleted list of use cases. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotation details.

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 covers the core function and diagnostics behavior, but lacks information about output/return format and potential side effects. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete in explaining what the agent can expect from execution, though the primary usage is adequately described.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level details, but this is acceptable because the schema handles the semantic burden. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool executes a TQL pipeline via the local `tenzir` binary, and lists specific use cases such as testing, debugging, and verifying syntax. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `run_test` (which runs formal tests) and `package_add_test` (which adds tests to packages).

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?

A 'Use this tool to' section provides explicit contexts for invocation, covering testing, debugging, and verification. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the scenarios clearly position it as a development/debugging aid, which is sufficient guidance for most cases.

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