Run Tests Wait

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint: false annotation, the description reveals critical behaviors: no confirmation required, transport failures and domain reloads do not erase the last snapshot, and a caller timeout is observational—returning TIMEOUT with run data without marking the run complete. These details are valuable for agent decision-making and go well beyond annotation hints.

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 compact, with a clear first sentence followed by a short behavioral note. The slight redundancy ('Dispatches test run' repeats the first sentence) prevents a perfect score, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 with 5 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: dispatch, wait, timeout semantics, and resilience. It does not describe the success return format or polling behavior, but the schema provides parameter details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with all five parameters having descriptive text in the schema. The description itself does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema. It mentions timeout behavior but does not tie it to specific parameters, 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's function: dispatching tests and waiting for the exact run to become terminal. It uses a specific verb ('dispatch' + 'wait') and resource ('tests'), and distinguishes itself from run_tests by emphasizing the waiting behavior. The added note about no confirmation further clarifies the action.

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 implies this tool is for running tests and waiting for completion, but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like run_tests. There is no direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the wait semantics are clear. The absence of exclusions or alternative references makes the guidance only moderate.

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