Run Tenzir tests

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that update=True modifies baselines and passthrough=True shows actual vs expected output for debugging. It goes beyond just restating the annotations, though it does not detail all 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?

The description is well-structured with a brief introduction and a bulleted list of use cases. Every sentence earns its place, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 main use cases, selection semantics, and support for fixtures in integration tests. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not describe the return value or test result format, which would be helpful but is not critical given the tool's nature.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of `selection` (files, directories, empty list) and mentions update/passthrough effects, but these are also described in the schema. It does not clarify the `root` or `ctx` parameters beyond the schema, so it adds limited additional value.

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 runs tests for TQL pipelines using the tenzir-test framework, with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates distinct use cases (verify operators, regression tests, baselines, debugging), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_pipeline or package_add_test.

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 provides explicit use cases: verifying package operators, running regression tests, generating baselines, and debugging failures. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it for test-related tasks.

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