cypress_run_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that it runs headless and returns structured results, screenshots, and next actions, but does not mention side effects of running tests, project setup requirements, or potential long execution time. The mention of 'screenshot paths' provides some context but is incomplete.

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 that front-loads the core action and return value. It is concise and every part contributes meaningful information.

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 description covers the main function and return type, but fails to mention prerequisites like a valid Cypress project, how this differs from running a single test, or error handling. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for each. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'run', the resource 'single Cypress spec file', and the mode 'headless', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cypress_run_test (likely runs a single test) and cypress_list_specs (lists specs). It also specifies the return value.

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 a spec file headless, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cypress_run_test. There is no mention of when not to use it or context about prerequisites.

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