cmake_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating/unsafe profile is covered. The description adds workflow context ('after building') but does not disclose anything beyond the annotations such as execution side effects or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the parameter detail. No significant waste, though the parenthetical asides could be tightened.

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 tool has four optional parameters, a nested ProcessTimeout type, and an output schema. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description leaves three of four parameters (timeout, parallel, profiles) entirely unexplained, which is a notable gap for a moderately complex 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only the 'names' parameter (exact names, not regex; omit for defaults) and leaves 'timeout', 'parallel' and 'profiles' undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run CTest ... return test cases') and adds the 'after building' sequencing context. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name cmake_build/cmake_configure as the related 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?

'after building' implies the tool should be invoked following a build, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives among the cmake_* siblings.

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