cypress_run_spec

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: "Returns immediately and runs in background." However, it omits other useful behavioral context such as side effects (artifacts/screenshots), how completion is signaled, and how results can be retrieved through sibling tools. The provided behavior is helpful but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates both the core purpose and the key background-execution behavior in just a few words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is adequate for initiating a run against a given spec path, and the async behavior is mentioned. However, with no output schema and no mention of how to check status or retrieve results, an agent is left without some context needed for a fully informed invocation. It covers the essentials but not the surrounding workflow.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action ("Run") and resource ("a specific Cypress test spec file"), and the word "specific" distinguishes it from the sibling cypress_run_all. This gives an agent a clear, unambiguous understanding of what the tool does.

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 for running a single spec file rather than all specs, and the background-execution note hints at non-blocking use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like cypress_run_all, cypress_status, or cypress_output, nor does it explain when not to use this tool.

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