run_specific_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the environment variable requirement but does not specify behavior when the variable is false, nor the execution mode or output. More context is needed for a mutation-like tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and condition. While concise, it could be slightly expanded to improve completeness without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool executes tests (a complex action), the description is too brief. It lacks details on test selector format, success/failure reporting, and behavior when the environment variable is not set. Sibling tools likely have more context.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no new information about parameters beyond the schema, which already provides basic descriptions for path and test. The build_tool parameter lacks a description in both schema and description.

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 one Maven or Gradle test, differentiating from sibling tools like run_maven_tests and run_gradle_tests which likely run all tests. The verb 'run' and resource 'test' are specific.

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 mentions the condition 'when SPRING_TOOLKIT_ENABLE_TEST_RUNS=true', providing a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explain when not to use this tool or list alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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