test_run

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It accurately describes the tool's behavior: runs tests, returns summary or verbose results, includes edited_scene, and may include scene_warning. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or if it modifies any state, though running tests is generally read-only.

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 well-structured with three clear paragraphs: action, output details, and important caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but all information is relevant and no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, default vs verbose output, and the scene warning. It lacks detail on the `edited_scene` field's purpose and potential failure handling beyond the warning, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context beyond schema: explains verbose output and scene_warning related to suite. However, it does not elaborate on `test_name` or `exclude_test_name` beyond what the schema provides, and `suite` is simply restated. The added value is marginal.

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's purpose: 'Run GDScript test suites inside the connected Godot editor.' It explains the discovery process, execution, and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'test_manage' which likely manages tests rather than runs them.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: explains when to use (to run test suites), what the default output is, and how to get verbose results. Additionally warns about the scene assumption and instructs to open the main scene and re-run if failures occur, which is crucial for correct usage.

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