run_maester_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (pass/fail summary and file paths) and runtime (2–10 minutes), which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the tests are read-only, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose, output, scoping mechanism, and runtime. Every clause adds distinct information with no redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it runs, what it returns, scoping options, and time expectations. It doesn't elaborate on all flags, but the schema covers those. Slightly more context on prerequisites or typical use cases would make it complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only summarizes scoping ('Scope with tags and services') without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter like tags, services, useDrift, etc.

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 a specific action ('Run Maester 2.2 security tests') against a defined resource ('Microsoft 365 / Entra tenant'), and mentions the output (pass/fail summary) and execution scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_failed_tests or get_security_posture_summary by focusing on the execution rather than result retrieval.

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 this is the tool to execute tests and mentions scoping via tags/services, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like run_ca_whatif or audit_ai_agents. There is no direct 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance, though the tool's action-oriented nature makes the intended context fairly clear.

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