run-apex-tests

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry all behavioral info. It mentions 'coverage and detailed results' but does not disclose execution mode (sync/async), side effects, or required permissions. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. Frontal loading is acceptable. Efficient, though could benefit from a touch more structure.

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 exists, and description does not explain the 'detailed results' format, pagination, error handling, or test run lifecycle. Incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description hints at coverage (includeCoverage) but adds no extra meaning beyond schema. 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 clearly states the tool runs Apex tests with coverage and detailed results, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'execute-apex' which runs arbitrary code. No other test-running sibling exists, so differentiation is adequate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description lacks conditions for use, such as when to omit tests or how test selection works compared to other deploy/run tools.

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