run_tests

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

The description discloses the return format (pass/fail report with test name, status, duration, failure message), but it does not mention potential side effects like compilation, dependency resolution, or behavior on test failure. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves some gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that includes the command, purpose, and return value. 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?

For a simple test-runner tool with documented parameters and an explicit return format in the description, the definition is complete. No output schema is needed, and the tool's behavior is adequately scoped.

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?

The schema fully describes both parameters, including the optional filter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs the Soroban contract test suite via `cargo test` and returns a structured report, distinguishing it from build, deploy, invoke, and get-state siblings.

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 clear context that the tool is for running tests, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The purpose and sibling names imply the right usage.

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