testneo_run_api_test_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature (create and execute), the ordered chain behavior, and the guard conditions. However, it does not detail potential side effects, rate limits, or failure modes. The reference to sibling routing helps but is not fully self-contained. Scores 3 as it covers key behaviors but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, each carrying essential information. The first sentence defines purpose and options, the second relates to a sibling, and the third states guard conditions. No filler, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Despite high complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description leaves many details uncovered. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the behavior of numerous parameters. Given the tool's sophistication and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without external documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains only three parameters (test_case_ids, saved_chain_id, confirm) out of 12. Critical parameters like run_name, notes, parallel, max_workers, environment_variables, etc., are left without any explanation. This significantly impairs the agent's ability to use them correctly.

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 creates and executes a multi-test run using an ordered API chain, specifying two distinct input modes (test_case_ids or saved_chain_id) and explicitly preserving order. It also references a sibling tool (testneo_run_batch_by_tags) for routing similarity, distinguishing itself effectively.

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 provides clear usage guidance: choose either explicit test_case_ids (ordered) or saved_chain_id from a specific sibling tool. It also mentions the guard conditions (TESTNEO_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE + confirm=true) and references similar routing to another tool, giving adequate context for when to use. Scores 4 because it lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is otherwise strong.

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