run_gut_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is not a pure read operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: bounded output, timeout handling, and cancellation, though it does not detail side effects on the project or how cancellation is enforced.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important parameter constraint. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 7-parameter tool with very low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It mentions timeout and output bounds but does not explain most parameters or their effects, and it says nothing about default behavior or execution side effects.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters. The description adds a critical constraint for testFile and directory exclusivity, but leaves projectPath, headless, logLevel, timeoutMs, and includeSubdirs undocumented beyond the sparse schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Run installed GUT tests'. 'GUT' distinguishes it from generic scene or project runners such as run_scene_test and run_playtest, though it does not explicitly route against those siblings.

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?

It provides a useful selection rule: 'Choose exactly one testFile or directory.' However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of run_scene_test, run_playtest, or run_project, so the agent must infer the broader usage context.

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