ide_test_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the content coverage (functions, assertions, groups) but does not clarify what the tool actually returns (e.g., a document listing, a usage guide) or whether it is read-only. The nature of a reference API implies informational output, but that is not stated.

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 long sentence that packs in many relevant details (scope, areas, assertions, grouping, notes, examples). It is dense but not bloated or redundant. Every clause contributes to the overall picture, so it earns a 4.

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's complexity as a reference API, the description provides a broad overview but lacks specifics about the output format or how the information is presented. It does not describe pagination, searchability, or whether examples are included inline. This is adequate for a reference tool but leaves room for more completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds context by outlining the API areas covered, which is sufficient.

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 identifies this as the complete test-bench (Bench) API for tests/*.rhai, listing the specific areas covered (program, run, UART, SPI, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling reference tools like ik_compiler_reference or ide_device_api, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'tests/*.rhai' and 'how-to-run notes and examples', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ide_device_api or ide_test_template. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance.

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