runTypeTests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., file modifications), authentication needs, or performance characteristics. The minimal description does not compensate for missing annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient but could be improved by separating purpose from details for better scanability.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe return values (e.g., pass/fail, error messages). Given the tool type (test runner) and three parameters, the description lacks essential details for an agent to use it 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% with all parameters described. The description adds context about the comment format (@ts-lsp-mcp expect-type/expect-error) beyond the schema, but does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., precedence when both file and pattern are provided). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('type test assertions from files with @ts-lsp-mcp expect-type/expect-error comments'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools that focus on code intelligence (e.g., getHover, getDiagnostics).

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 for running type tests but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context inferred from sibling tool names.

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