godot_run_tests

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

The description discloses headless execution, auto-detection of framework, and return of structured pass/fail counts with failure details. These go beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and output. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (counts and failure details). All parameters are documented in schema. The tool fits well among siblings without missing 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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds the auto-detection behavior but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 runs GUT or GdUnit4 tests headlessly and returns structured results. It auto-detects the framework, which is a specific differentiator from siblings like godot_run_project. The verb 'Run' and resource 'tests' are precise.

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 makes it clear this tool is for running tests, not for other operations like running the project or analyzing scenes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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