defold_test

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns the tail on success, returns a tool ERROR with exit code on failure, warns that execution can take minutes, and explains the tail parameter's effect. This covers output format, error handling, and timing – all beyond what any structured annotation would provide.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the action, the success/error output, and the duration warning. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any redundant phrasing.

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 explains the main behavior, error handling, and timing. It does not state what happens if no testScript is registered (only that it runs 'if' one is), but this is a minor omission. There is no output schema, yet the return behavior is described, so an agent can confidently call the tool.

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 100% (both parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to 'Widen `tail`' when the failure is further up, giving practical guidance beyond the schema's generic 'Lines from the end of the output'. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 the project's headless test suite') with a clear resource ('the project') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on tests rather than running/stopping the game. It also clarifies the condition ('if a testScript is registered'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you want to run tests) and notes a prerequisite (testScript registered), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use this tool. The guidance is clear but not comparative; an agent could infer the distinction from the purpose but the description does not call out sibling tools like defold_run.

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