run_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The single sentence only states the action and output, without disclosing side effects, defaults, backgrounding behavior, or permissions. It says results are structured but gives no further behavioral detail.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, immediately stating the action and output. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values or the overall workflow (e.g., how background runs interact with get_run_status). It relies heavily on parameter descriptions, leaving the agent to piece together usage context.

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 92%, so baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The main description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema's detailed per-parameter explanations.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Run Playwright tests') and clearly states the output ('return structured results'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_run_status or list_tests, which handle monitoring or listing.

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 main description implies the primary use case (running tests). The schema's 'wait' parameter explicitly mentions using get_run_status for background runs, providing an alternative. However, there are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions.

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