test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It shows the tool executes shell commands, implying it's a mutation/execution tool, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: whether it requires specific permissions, if it modifies system state, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The echo statement suggests it outputs success messages, but behavioral characteristics are largely undocumented.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently lists the commands executed. It's front-loaded with the main purpose (run npm script 'test') followed by implementation details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from command 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?

For a tool that executes shell commands with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It shows what commands run but doesn't explain the tool's behavior, error handling, return values, or how parameters affect execution. The context signals indicate significant gaps in documentation that the description doesn't address.

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 50% (only 'args' has a description). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what the '_' parameter does, how 'args' integrates with the commands shown, or provide examples of valid arguments. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented '_' parameter.

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 an npm script called 'test' and lists the specific commands executed (node dist/index.js --list-scripts, node scripts/integration-test.mjs, echo). It distinguishes from siblings like 'test_integration' by showing this runs multiple commands including integration tests. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'build' or 'start'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this test suite should be run (e.g., during development, before deployment), what prerequisites might be needed, or how it differs from 'test_integration' beyond showing different commands. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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