cypress_run_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that it returns 'structured results with recommended next actions' and uses 'grep' for matching, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (test execution might have side effects), failure modes, or prerequisites. It provides some behavioral context but not a full picture.

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 but packs in the core action, scope, method, and return value. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 purpose and mentions the return type ('structured results with recommended next actions'), but without an output schema, this is vague. It does not specify the structure of the results or how the 'recommended next actions' are formatted. For a tool that likely returns complex data, this is a gap. Additionally, it doesn't mention error handling or timeout behavior, but the parameter schema covers some of that. Overall, it's adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only a little extra meaning: 'by name' maps to testName, 'within a spec file' maps to spec, and 'using grep' suggests the matching behavior. This is slightly beyond the schema, but the schema's own descriptions already carry the load, so the baseline 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 tool's function: 'Run a specific test by name within a spec file using grep.' It uses a specific verb ('run'), defines the resource ('specific test by name within a spec file'), and the grep detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like cypress_run_spec (which likely runs the whole spec). This is specific and unambiguous.

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: when you need to run a single test by name in a spec file, rather than an entire spec. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like cypress_run_spec or cypress_rerun_last, nor does it give exclusions. The 'within a spec file' phrase gives context, but explicit when/when-not guidance is missing.

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