run_tests_wait

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: transport failures and domain reloads do not erase the last snapshot, and a caller timeout is observational only, returning TIMEOUT without marking the Unity run complete. This adds meaningful context about failure handling and side effects that annotations do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action, resilience to transport failures/reloads, and timeout semantics. No wasted words; the most important purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 key behavioral aspects and partial return semantics, but with no output schema and undocumented parameters, it leaves the agent guessing about success return payloads, the meaning of timeout versus terminal states, and how request_id relates to the 'exact run.' Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is inadequate for full autonomous invocation but not severely deficient.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only references 'timeout' conceptually and 'request, run and snapshot data' in the timeout return, but does not explain mode, filter, request_id, or poll_interval. With zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Dispatch tests and wait for the exact run to become terminal.' This clearly states the tool's core purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like run_tests (dispatch only) and get_test_run (query result) by emphasizing waiting for a specific run to reach a terminal state.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to dispatch tests and block until the run reaches a terminal state. It provides contextual behavior around timeouts and transport failures but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. No named alternatives are given.

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