ide_run_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'headless' operation and 'throwaway workspace', which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, return format details, or failure behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The two-mode usage is clearly and economically stated.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main modes and optional parameters well. It does not detail every default (e.g., test_name, program_name), but the schema already covers those. The essential usage context is complete enough for a test-running 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 high (86%), and the description adds semantic grouping (workspace OR program+test) and clarifies that mcu is for 'load_hex tests'. This goes beyond the schema field descriptions, which individually list the parameters but not the relationship between them.

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 'Run' with a clear resource ('headless `ikide test` runner') and a specific outcome ('return the real PASS/FAIL verdict'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `ik_simulate` or `ik_check` by focusing on the test runner.

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 explicitly states two usage modes: providing an existing workspace or inline program+test. It also mentions optional devices and mcu. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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