test_integration

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only reveals execution behavior. It doesn't disclose side effects, permissions needed, time/performance characteristics, or what happens on failure. 'Run' implies execution but lacks behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste—directly states the command to execute. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple execution tool.

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 runs integration tests with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what integration tests cover, expected outcomes, error handling, or how parameters affect execution.

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 coverage is 50% with 2 parameters. The description mentions no parameters directly, but implies execution of a specific script. It adds minimal value beyond schema's 'args' description for optional arguments, meeting baseline for partial coverage.

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 action ('Run npm script') and specifies the exact script name 'test:integration' with implementation details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'build' or 'test' by being integration-specific, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test' or other siblings. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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